... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

[Markdoc]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

well....so there is hope . I will see how it evolves.

 

Yep. One thing we did a lot when we were customising Hero system to our games was run lots of one-off or short games with disposable characters. The players were given a fair degree of freedom to design how they liked and we almost never bothered with artificial limits like points caps. We had a lot of fun, and learned what worked and what didn't.

 

For FH games, my basic rules are:

 

1) keep an eye on magic users - the fact that they have access to a wide range of powers and other characters do not, makes them more powerful than they look at first glance. The mandatory restrictions you indicated would solve this potential problem. This has the side effect that it is often more cost-efficient to pick up a free weapon if you just want to hurt someone, meaning that non-magic-using characters are often the most efficient dealers of raw damage to single targets - but that's OK, IMO, because magic using characters are better at almost everything else. In addition, you need to keep some control on what sort of spells are available. mind control, X-ray vision and long distance teleport are often far more gamebreaking than a simple killing attack. Some game systems limit them to "high level characters" but in Hero you can get them relatively readily if the GM lets you.

 

2) Don't allow "equipment stacking". This means you can't use character points to augment free stuff - otherwise it's too easy to get free armour and add on some extra defence at low cost, or pick up a free sword and make it uber-cutty. Again, if you do this all your PCs will gravitate to warrior-mage types, because nothing else compares. If the mage has armour and the stoneskin spell then he gets the better of the two, not both.

 

With those basic caveats, I've run a lot of FH games and never had any real problems. In the current FH game, we are three years in and we've had two dedicated magic users (we've got one left), one rogue type and four fighter-types, and two that started as fighter types and have expanded to acquire some magical powers. In addition, the fighter types mostly have differentiated roles - one archer, one face-man type, one strongman and one specialised damage dealer.

 

In other words, in over three years of play, we still have a fairly broad range of abilities and they've remained relatively balanced - without a great deal of input from me on what powers they should and should not have.

 

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

The final proof is in the pudding. Too many people have played Hero for too long without the supposed undercosting of defenses crippling their games to cause me to believe that the pricing is a problem. Some gamers play a high defenses game, where combat is a very gradual war of attrition. Others play a low defenses game where combat is a matter of first strike. These games have very different feels, but they all work.

 

As has been noted several times already on this thread, it's a matter of setting and abiding by ground rules for the level of attack and defense.

 

The pudding argument falls short because of this.

 

YES game have played without the cost breaking them - but that merely means other restrictions keep it from getting too far out of hand. Most games i have seen set limits on PD/ED and often see those limits used - ie many are at those limits.

 

there usually tends to be a fairly narrow range of "effective defenses" as frankly the difference between "takes noticeable effect from a hit" and "took too much and is con stunned" isn't broad in many cases.

 

But costs in hero are there for consistency not for balance... so the basic premise which seems to be an expectation of BALANCE fron COST is the issue.

 

But then the main flaw in the op analysis to me is assuming the defense vs attack only when the limited defense is up.

 

 

to compare a 15 cp spell you must include all the following cases

 

1. spell up an functioning

2. hands tied so no spell

3. silence field so no spell

4. spell dropped due to low end

5. spell dropped due to being stunned

 

calculate average damage effects in each case

apply a multiplier for "how often is this case in play"

then calculate average damage vs defense

[Kraven Kor]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

I have never run a Fantasy Hero game, but played in a few. I have seen something which can be perceived as an imbalance: Warriors can use weapons that add damage for free, while magicians have to pay points for their spells. Hence, if I were to run a game, I would do it this way, which also solves the problem we discuss:

 

This is only partially true.

 

Real Weapons with a STR Minimum can have damage classes added for a high STR Score. They can also have damage classes added by Skill Levels, Maneuvers, etc. In all cases they cannot exceed double their base damage classes.

 

A wizards spells lack the STR Minimum and extra damage from STR. However, any attack of any form can have any number of ways to add DC's - in this case you simply haven't defined a modifier equivalent to a "STR Minimum" for spells. I wouldn't recommend just creating an "INT Minimum" but instead just have, or allow, or encourage, your wizards to purchase Skill Levels that only add DC's to their spells (which would be based on the Martial DC's, 4 points per DC - which is cheaper than STR at 5 points per DC. In fact, a Martial Damage Class could be defined as "+5 STR, Only to add Damage Classes (-1/4)"

 

It doesn't matter how you add damage classes, you CAN add damage classes to any attack, via multiple methods, up to a maximum of 2x the base attack's damage classes.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

At this point I just want to say: HERO is complex, thorough, and as capable of encountering disaster from any number of issues as any other gaming system. And it is not perfect.

 

However, the beauty of it is that - if you set about to do so - you can create the balance and feel you want to achieve in your games. This requires more than a basic understanding of the rules, and can be challenging.

 

The advantage of HERO to any other system, for me, is that it lets me (and/or my players) set the point of balance between attack and defense, magic or swordplay, pirates or ninjas. It lets me set the tempo of combat - a quick bloody brawl, or a long calculating dance.

 

And it is balanced. But only if you set the counterweights on the scale. It is a tool and can only do what you tell it to do.

[Crypt]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

Doesn’t the book specifically suggest using Adjustment Powers rather than applying Usable on Others with Defensive Powers? Don’t have my book to double check. Regardless, the book does specifically have a provision that Adjustment Powers only have half effect against (or on) Defensive Powers and it is arguable that that limitation should apply to Armor (or any Defensive Power) bought with UBO also. In fact, if I’m remembering correctly about my first point (wish I had my book) it’s not just arguable, it is rather self-evident. Lastly, the Usable On/By Others Advantages are Caution (or are they Stop Sign Powers) for a reason; they may affect game balance . That’s why there is a warning and that is why trying to use a Power with UBO to argue something is priced wrong simply makes for an extremely poor comparison, regardless of your issues with Limitations or anything else.

 

A good argument even if you start from a possibility and finish with a certainty very quickly.

I'm going to ask to S.Long.

 

And Steve said "No"... (he would not half the effect)

 

It was so "self-evident"...

[Crypt]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

And it is balanced. But only if you set the counterweights on the scale. It is a tool and can only do what you tell it to do.

 

yes yes....

 

The tool will have to make working a world where everything is possible.

The problem is that even if a 10PD armor spell may exist it should be hard to get..... even if it costs the same as 1DK....

 

You see what i mean ? The cost could have been the very best and simple way to do that.

Instead of that i will have to dictate limits and confront frustated players ("i have the points ! why do you forbid it ? Because of balance ?"... I already know what they will say.)

 

But in the other hand maybe it will work by itself and such a spell will not kill the drama of encountering a dragon and his 3DK attack, for instance. We'll see.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

yes yes....

 

The tool will have to make working a world where everything is possible.

The problem is that even if a 10PD armor spell may exist it should be hard to get.

 

Then make it hard to get.

 

It's your world.

[Markdoc]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

yes yes....

 

The tool will have to make working a world where everything is possible.

The problem is that even if a 10PD armor spell may exist it should be hard to get.

 

You are misunderstanding. The whole idea behind a points-based system is that it doesn't make anything "hard to get"; that's the GM's job. It tries to make it balanced, with similar points costs, if the GM decides to make it available. A 10 PD armour spell costs you the same as a 1d6 HKA, which may occasionally put BOD through, and will usually put STUN through that defence, or a 1d6 E-RKA, which will always put BOD and STUN through. Given the number of ways there are to put damage through 10 PD armour for the same cost, it seems pretty balanced.

 

The cost ISN'T the best way to control access (in fact, it's the very worst) since that means the cost would be different in every game - in some games 10 PD armour would be a lot, in many, it's hardly any.

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

yes yes....

 

The tool will have to make working a world where everything is possible.

The problem is that even if a 10PD armor spell may exist it should be hard to get..... even if it costs the same as 1DK....

 

You see what i mean ? The cost could have been the very best and simple way to do that.

 

Why should it be hard to get?

[Hierax]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

Crypt,

 

If you want to use Active Points as a balance mechanism (even if others don't) say for designing spells, IMO, you have to use a House Rule to change the the official Metarule about defences being considerably cheaper than attacks. This is a toolkitting alteration to the official system. For many people the system is fine as it is as they agree with this metarule. But if it's not working for your game you need to change it.

 

I hope I understand what you're trying to get at.

 

If your desire is to have defence be balanced with attacks on an "equal" basis based on Active Points where 1 Level of Defence counters 1 Level of Attack. Here's what I'd suggest:

 

Require all spells to 1) take regular nDEF equal to rDEF, and 2) have a "Defensive Metarule Adjustment Advantage" as follows:

 

• nDEF (+1)
  
• Damage Resistance (+8)
  
• Armor (+1)
  
• Force Field (+2)
  
• Force Wall (+1/4)
  

 

This will give you:

 

• 15 Active Points will get you a 3d6 N attack or a 1d6 K attack.
  
• 15 Active Points will get you 3nDEF + 3 rDEF
  

 

Looking at the Range of Results using a RKA and the new 1/2d6(d3) STUNx, you'll get 1 BODY per 2 attacks (3/6) and 2 STUN (39/18) per attack on average vs. an average (not looking at the range of results) Standard Effect of 0 BODY and 0 STUN per attack.

 

However, realize that by doing this you'll be raising the Real Point opportunity cost of Spell defences to characters.

 

It will let you use Active Points cap for Balance of point parity with attacks without using a separate defence cap.

 

Without any extra Advantages (like Hardened) or Limitations your stoneskin would be:

 

Armor 6/6 or 12/0 or 0/12 (+1) 36 Active Points

PD/ED 6/6 or 12/0 or 0/12 (+1) 24 Active Points

Total: 60 Active Points

 

This "balances" against a 60 Active Point Attack -- or 2 of these defences balance against 2 60 point attacks (1 vs. PD, 1 vs. ED). If, however, you want defences vs. both PD and ED all in one, then go with 1/2 of the Advantages I mention above (6/6 would be 30 AP balanced vs a 2d6K attack). Depends how you look at that.

 

I think it comes down to either accept the system the way that it is or find a way to change it to be the way that you want it to be.

 

Somewhere in Fantasy Hero it mentions if you want to make certain spell effects rarer you should change the cost of them and in the core Hero System Rules it talks about changing the system. This is just one way to do it that might give you what you're looking for.

[prestidigitator]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

Yeah' date=' but in 20 years of playing and GM'ing heroic level games, this has never been a problem: the problem has always been the reverse: limiting magic users so that they don't dominate the game. Magic gives so many advantages, that the "free HA/HKA, free armour and CSL" really isn't an issue. We've tried multiple variants on free or reduced cost spells and they always end up with [i']all[/i] characters being magic users, even if they don't start that way.

 

If it were just me, then it might be it was my GM'ing style, but it's been all the games of this type I played in as well. The "free stuff" problem is actually a theoretical rather than real problem, IMO and is usually bought up by people who don't play a lot of heroic level games. That's not meant to be a slam, merely pointing out that experience tends to contradict what looks like a problem: I used to worry about it too, when we were first designing games.

 

It's like Ego Attack. I used to worry that it was underpriced, because ... well, it is. But in actual play, that's rarely been a problem (I say rarely, but in my experience, never) - maybe because instead of being underpriced, BOECV is over-priced.

 

Yeah. Good points. And repped for your previous post. That was a FH grand slam.

 

In my experience, the spells that are game breakers in FH are not combat spells. Healing and Flight are the ones to look out for. Absolutely dirt cheap for what they do, and overcome so many obstacles and difficulties in a fantasy game it's not funny. Those are the Powers that keep me up at night when planning fantasy magic systems.

 

As for the general magic system design, most of mine tend to revolve around VPPs, which gives me less guilt over keeping a tight leash on the spells themselves even though it returns a bit when I try to give the players some creative license in designing their own spells from time to time. In any case I think it makes magic expensive but versatile enough that players don't feel either extremely attracted to nor repelled from using magic.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

From 5ER page 277:

Usable By Others powers present similar possibilities for abuse. For example, imagine how it might affect a campaign if every PC got extra defense from a Force Field, Usable By Others, in every combat. When determining each character’s affect on campaign balance, be sure to include powers they might “receive” in this manner.

So Steve says he wouldn’t halve the effect of Armor UBO, fine. That doesn’t change the fact that he specifically states in the rules that he wrote that such a build might be unbalancing to the point that not only is UBO a Stop Sign Advantage, it actually specifically addresses the issue of Defenses.

Same Page:

There are other ways to grant powers – Transform for example.

My point? If you, as GM, decide to allow a build so rife with potential game breakage that the core rule book actually warns that it might cause balance issues in a campaign, I have to say the problem isn’t the game…

[ajackson]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

In fantasy games, defensive spells tend to have two advantages (which are largely not factors in superhero games). First of all, they can often be effectively set up ahead of combat, and can thus reasonably carry more disads than attack spells. Secondly, it is traditional to actually be worried about taking body damage in fantasy, and defense against body is rather cheap. A fairly simple house rule is to just make all 'resistant' defenses only 50% resistant, at which point a 10 point armor spell is only +5 resistant defense and can still be punctured by a sword.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

A better way to do that without house rules - just buy armor as such:

 

X Armor + X PD / X ED or whatever. Buy less armor, then buy an equal (or higher) amount of extra PD and/or ED.

 

So to "negate" 1d6k physical damage you would buy 6 points of Armor for PD, and then 18 to 24 PD (depending if you want it to prevent ALL stun from even a MAX damage roll or not.) Naturally the recipient's base PD will add to it so I'd say more like 12 to 18 PD to keep cost down a bit.

 

It is almost the same as "50% resistant" described by AJackson, but done by RAW rather than houserule.

 

Note that this still would not negate all damage from a head shot that rolled 4 or better.

 

---

 

For example, my Star Hero Campaign Armors are all going to be Armor + PD/ED because I don't want the players being stunned but unhurt after 90% of attacks - I want it to be more effective armor and "all or nothing" combat where it either bounces off you or you need a doctor, STAT

 

Figure my campaign will have average attacks of 9 DC (3d6k, 9d6n), and average resistant defenses of 8 to 10 with PD/ED in the 15 to 25 range. This means on a torso shot average damage will be around 32 STUN and 10 BODY, vs. about 20/10r defenses... high rolls will hurt, hit locations will be important, but armor does its job against "average" hits.

[Markdoc]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

In fantasy games' date=' defensive spells tend to have two advantages (which are largely not factors in superhero games). First of all, they can often be effectively set up ahead of combat, and can thus reasonably carry more disads than attack spells. Secondly, it is traditional to actually be worried about taking body damage in fantasy, and defense against body is rather cheap. A fairly simple house rule is to just make all 'resistant' defenses only 50% resistant, at which point a 10 point armor spell is only +5 resistant defense and can still be punctured by a sword.[/quote']

 

Actually, I think the real problem in fantasy is that the bulk of the population is usually non-magic using and that limits most attacks to the 1-1 1/2 d6 HKA range - in other words, mundane weapons. That's fine as long as people are also limited to mundane armour, but as soon as you have magic in play, it's relatively trivial to reach a number where mundane weapons are not much of a threat.

 

The game system is still balanced - it's equally trivial to generate attack spells that will blast big holes in any mundane armour. It's just that you lose balance between those that can use magic and those that can't.

 

This is, BTW, not a problem restricted to FH. In modern games, or near future SciFi, you have a similar problem, but inverted - attacks are powerful, armour not so much. In neither case is it a rules problem. It's a setting problem, where expectations limit one type of powerset, but not another. That's what creates an imbalance.

 

There are two easy solutions, neither of which requires changing the rules.

They do require realistic expectations. Either accept that to run gritty fantasy, magic needs to be limited (otherwise it's not gritty fantasy, natch) if it is not to outpace mundane equipment or accept that you don't want to limit magic, and in that case you are running a high fantasy game.

 

If you do the latter, there are two ways to go. First, accept that all characters are going to be magic users of some sort (what we call a "Rialto" campaign, after the Jack Vance character). Or accept that characters can have "non-magical" powers (what we call an "exalted" campaign after the game). This latter is the space that I mostly GM in.

 

In the current FH game for example, we have two characters with magic spells - they use VPPs. We have two characters with "martial arts" - they use multipowers. And two characters have "fighting tricks" - powers (an autofire HKA and an AoE HKA) to reflect skill in combat. In this game both magical and non-magical powers are still limited: magic has to be of a certain school, so it's hard to get a mage who's good at everything - and the limitations: gestures, concentration, etc means they are not usually well suited to frontline combat. "Mundane powers" however are limited in what they can do. Martial arts can get you awesome killing or defensive powers, but they won't heal you, let you fly, etc (We're not talking Wuxia, here). Characters end up balanced but shine in different areas.

 

This doesn't actually have to be at an "exalted" power level - I started the current crop of PCs at 50+50 points. Over time however (the PC with the most XP is at 196 points currently) the characters have now reached a cinematic level:they are frequently wounded - even in threat of death - by minion level characters if they play foolishly or are greatly outnumbered, but they usually survive. To take one example, the rogue-type character is now capable of Batman-level stealth and can do more damage with his martial arts as he used to do with his shortsword - so now, though he still carries a sword, he tackles almost every opponent with his fists and feet. He's quite capable of taking on armoured opponents like that. Falling from a third story window's still going hurt him though, and a single well-placed blow can still take him out of the fight or even kill him. So ... cinematic, but still relatively low fantasy.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

 

Yes' date=' you should, it rules. If you can justify buying it, it is the single greatest tool a HERO GM can have at his disposal - makes character creation incredibly faster...[/quote']

 

Agreed! I'm a VPP advocate, too. I generally require players to provide me with a laundry list of regularly used abilities to approve, but generally allow innovation in-game insofar as the player can do it quick-quick and not slow down the flow of play. I reserve a veto right for such innovations, but its seldom been necessary to use it.

 

For fantasy, whether or not on-the-fly innovation is apropos is dependent on how magic works. If its inspirational/spontaneous magic it would work. But for dusty old tomes, or the requirement of writing mystic disquisitions on your "new works," not so much.