Random FH problems.

[Yamo]

Looking through FH now. Noticed a few things that I think might be either mistakes or bad ideas. Wondering how you guys see it:

 

a) The potions are all built as Powers with Delayed Effect, OAF Fragile, and Charges. So far, so good, but not of them include any sort of Limitation representing the sort of rare ingredients that normally go into potions. The assumption seems to be that the potion-maker has a constant supply of ingredients that he never has to pay for. That's contrary to how I've usually seen this handled in games. I

my not sure I want my players making potions for free. Why weren't ingredient-related Limitations like the ones for Expendable Foci used, as well?

 

The section on scrolls seems, well, kind of idiotic. As Independent items, they're a horrendous waste of Character Points. I can't imagine any PC in any campaign I ran paying 15 points for one use each of four spells he already knows (as per the "Scroll of Many Spells" in FH). That's just loco. 15 CP is a collosal amount in a Heroic campaign. A costly Independent item just to cast a spell you already know once? Why? Scrolls are virtually unusable as per the "official" FH writeup.

 

c) None of the magic arrows have any kind of a Limitation in thier game information indicating that a bow is necesary to employ them. They're just RKAs. A player using a item written-up like that would have the full weight of the rules on his side if he insisted he could manually throw the things for full range and damage! Silly. Was this a mistake, or what?

[badger3k]

Re: Random FH problems.

 

Originally posted by Yamo

Looking through FH now. Noticed a few things that I think might be either mistakes or bad ideas. Wondering how you guys see it:

 

a) The potions are all built as Powers with Delayed Effect, OAF Fragile, and Charges. So far, so good, but not of them include any sort of Limitation representing the sort of rare ingredients that normally go into potions. The assumption seems to be that the potion-maker has a constant supply of ingredients that he never has to pay for. That's contrary to how I've usually seen this handled in games. I

my not sure I want my players making potions for free. Why weren't ingredient-related Limitations like the ones for Expendable Foci used, as well?

 

The section on scrolls seems, well, kind of idiotic. As Independent items, they're a horrendous waste of Character Points. I can't imagine any PC in any campaign I ran paying 15 points for one use each of four spells he already knows (as per the "Scroll of Many Spells" in FH). That's just loco. 15 CP is a collosal amount in a Heroic campaign. A costly Independent item just to cast a spell you already know once? Why? Scrolls are virtually unusable as per the "official" FH writeup.

 

c) None of the magic arrows have any kind of a Limitation in thier game information indicating that a bow is necesary to employ them. They're just RKAs. A player using a item written-up like that would have the full weight of the rules on his side if he insisted he could manually throw the things for full range and damage! Silly. Was this a mistake, or what?

 

In order that I find them -

 

a) potions - thats more or less a GM call consistent with his universe. That's just an add on to the focus limitation anyway (or it can be a completely separate limitation if you want).

 

To my mind scrolls are pretty useless anyway - however, they do make good treasure. In another (unnamed) game system that looks like dad, making any magic item costs experience. So while you are making magic items, your pals are going up in levels. It's supposed to be a trade off. If I was making them, I'd go with scrolls without the independent modifier (making the scrolls good for the caster only) and set the recovery time to several days or more (since they take time to rewrite, and prevent the character from having rechargeable scrolls). Not quite typical fantasy, but if it plays well...

 

c) arrows - p170 - under Ranged Weapons and Focus - " are all OAFs, but they use the multiple Focus rules on pages 190-91 of the Hero System 5th Edition, because they require two objects to work: the projecting device (bow, crossbow, sling); and the projectile (arrow, bolt, sling stone). They do not receive any extra Limitation for this." Without looking at FRED, I'd say its not unreasonable that they need both to function right. If that doesn't work, add a -0 limitation (needs bow) to the arrow (or build it as a bonus power linked to the bow - that limits the arrow to use with the bow).

 

Just my thoughts.

[Blue Jogger]

Potions

In Fantasy Hero (last edition), alchemists seem to be able to whip up potions fairly easily and store them for later. The limiting factor comes from the spell itself, it can only be cast and delayed once (at full strength) or twice at half strength, etc...

 

Scrolls

They only work as treasure, or possibly trade. (I'll give you a scroll of X if you give me one of Y.) In the last fantasy campaign that I was in, my character built horses that changed into small statues which was donated to the group. He minorly glitched on one and gave it black and white markings (looked like a cow in the shape of a horse), he kept that one for himself. People would swear they could hear it moo.

 

The real cost of independent items can be cut back by using rare and expensive materials that have "points in them". Never been in a FH campaign long enough to gather such rare and expensive things that have "points in them". In episodic campaigns, forget about scrolls.

 

Arrows

Yeah, IMHO, it sounds wrong.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re: Random FH problems.

 

Originally posted by badger3k

To my mind scrolls are pretty useless anyway - however, they do make good treasure. In another (unnamed) game system that looks like dad, making any magic item costs experience. So while you are making magic items, your pals are going up in levels. It's supposed to be a trade off. If I was making them, I'd go with scrolls without the independent modifier (making the scrolls good for the caster only) and set the recovery time to several days or more (since they take time to rewrite, and prevent the character from having rechargeable scrolls). Not quite typical fantasy, but if it plays well...

 

We only have the blasted things because of that "other game". Why not just buy the spells with Trigger and lots of extra time. Then you can spend the Extra Time writing your scrolls and Trigger them by reading them. Potions and scrolls are just variations on a theme, when it comes right down to it. Cast it beforehand and trigger it later.

[Markdoc]

I'll see your problems:

 

Potions - I agree that the rare/difficult to obtain limitation should have been listed (even if only as an option), but it is in the general discussion, so that's a reasonable oversight in a book the size of FH

 

Scrolls - this is stupid. I have no idea why scrolls were treated differently from potions, especially since in earlier discussions on the subject it was generally agreed that independant was best reserved for "permanent magic items". I have already red-lined this section. Just treat scrolls exactly like potions.

 

Arrows: see the potion message. Yes, it should have been mentioned, but the "no extra limitation" for requiring a bow or crossbow was covered in the discussion, so you can show that to argumentative players.

 

And I'll raise you three more:

 

#1. Deadly blow (and all of its cousins). While I have no problems with the concept of increased damage, the way it was done is just daft.

 

Let me see. You have a 1 d6 HKA. You have another 1d6 HKA. Voila! you have a 2d6 HKA!

 

Well, no. Not in Hero system, you don't. And sure as hell, not in my games, you don't. There are a variety of ways to increase HKA damage: CSLs, martial arts, Aid to HKA or even buying an HKA, with no STR min,weapon of oppurtunity (any weapon) and using it to reflect "deadly with a blade". All are HERO system legal and all cost more (as they should: pumping your damage from 7 to 10 DC in a fantasy game is a huge advantage!) I have no idea what Steve was thinking with this one.

 

#2. Naked advantages on powers you don't have. Specifically this refers to the followthrough attacks (essentially the DnD cleave feat). Again, I have no problem with the idea: my players and I have been using this for years. But I don't allow players to add naked avantages to powers they have not purchased themselves. If you want the triggered HKA, you have to buy an HKA.

 

Would you allow a player to buy "usable by others" and then grab the party mage and apply it to his spells?

 

#3 Related to the above, combining the player's powers and free powers. FH states (as I have done for many years that if you want to make a magic sword, you don't grab a sword and apply advantages - you have to pay points for the HKA too). But the rules take exactly the opposite tack with things like combat luck, allowing you to add it to armour. This is bad ju-ju, which unbalances the game.

 

I don't allow a player to buy two sets of chain mail at the armourers (DEF6) and wear them both to get DEF12. DEF 4 combat luck and DEF6 chain mail are DEF6, in my game. Same applies to magic. A mage in DEF8 plate with a DEF8 force field spell is DEF 8 unless the armour is also a spell.

 

Trust me on this - you don't want to do it any other way.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Markdoc

#1. Deadly blow (and all of its cousins). While I have no problems with the concept of increased damage, the way it was done is just daft.

 

Let me see. You have a 1 d6 HKA. You have another 1d6 HKA. Voila! you have a 2d6 HKA!

 

Well, no. Not in Hero system, you don't. And sure as hell, not in my games, you don't. There are a variety of ways to increase HKA damage: CSLs, martial arts, Aid to HKA or even buying an HKA, with no STR min,weapon of oppurtunity (any weapon) and using it to reflect "deadly with a blade". All are HERO system legal and all cost more (as they should: pumping your damage from 7 to 10 DC in a fantasy game is a huge advantage!) I have no idea what Steve was thinking with this one.

Let me know if I'm missing something, but isn't HKA without a STR min exactly the way deadly blows are built in FH already? As to getting additional damage out of it rather than just an additional possible attack - it's built specifically for additional damage, instead of being an alternative attack. Additional damage powers aren't exceptional, and that's how they're usually built.

 

Aid wouldn't work, since it takes time and attack actions to set up and fades. This, by the way, is why I think it's grossly unsuitable for arrays and more than half of the applications to which it is put in examples.

 

The martial arts route would involve putting limitations on martial maneuvers and allowing martial arts in this limited form with fewer than 10 point invested. I'm not comfortable with either innovation. In addition, it would prevent deadly blows from combining with conventional martial maneuvers, which just seems wrong for (e.g.) a highly trained paladin smiting demons.

 

You could go the limited CSL route, I suppose, with an only to add damage limitation. One problem with that one though is that that limitation will tend to swamp the discount from having a deadly blow that applies only in a more limited variety of conditions rather than more broadly.

[Talon]

Re: Random FH problems.

 

Originally posted by Yamo

Looking through FH now. Noticed a few things that I think might be either mistakes or bad ideas. Wondering how you guys see it:

 

To me these are all bad ideas -- FH suggests how you might run a game, but nothing in here is a requirement. If you don't like their presentation, use a better one (I know I will).

 

a) The potions are all built as Powers with Delayed Effect, OAF Fragile, and Charges. So far, so good, but not of them include any sort of Limitation representing the sort of rare ingredients that normally go into potions.

 

For the reason given above I didn't comment on this for the FH playtest -- but for FHG, I was all over it. Hopefully Steve listened. It seemed odd to me that every spell except alchemy required Expendable Foci.

 

As it stands, the writeup achieves a much more re-usable type of potion than I prefer.

 

The section on scrolls seems, well, kind of idiotic. As Independent items, they're a horrendous waste of Character Points.

 

If don't like, change. If casting spells is a serious pain in the butt, then having a more readily available version on a scroll could be worth the pain.

 

c) None of the magic arrows have any kind of a Limitation in thier game information indicating that a bow is necesary to employ them. They're just RKAs. A player using a item written-up like that would have the full weight of the rules on his side if he insisted he could manually throw the things for full range and damage! Silly. Was this a mistake, or what?

 

To me that's a special effect: if a player showed me a magic arrow design with a "must be fired by bow" Limitation, that Limitation would become -0 very quickly.

[Blue Jogger]

There are certain powerful magics (that for GM sanity, if nothing else) should not be cast once per day or even once per week but only a few times per run of the campaign. Independent (and the loss of character points) reflects this. In some campaigns, painful magic just doesn't work. But when Gandolf screams, "NONE SHALL PASS!" I doubt he's using his None Shall Pass spell that can be cast 16 times a day.

[PhilFleischmann]

IMHO, the restriction that an arrow requires a bow to fire it is part of the "Real Weapon" limitation.

 

I think the potions were written that way so that GMs could decide for themselves how rare/expensive/difficult to obtain the ingredients are. Just add on the appropriate lims.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Markdoc

I'll see your problems:

 

#1. Deadly blow (and all of its cousins). While I have no problems with the concept of increased damage, the way it was done is just daft.

 

Let me see. You have a 1 d6 HKA. You have another 1d6 HKA. Voila! you have a 2d6 HKA!

 

Well, no. Not in Hero system, you don't. And sure as hell, not in my games, you don't. There are a variety of ways to increase HKA damage: CSLs, martial arts, Aid to HKA or even buying an HKA, with no STR min,weapon of oppurtunity (any weapon) and using it to reflect "deadly with a blade". All are HERO system legal and all cost more (as they should: pumping your damage from 7 to 10 DC in a fantasy game is a huge advantage!) I have no idea what Steve was thinking with this one.

 

#2. Naked advantages on powers you don't have. Specifically this refers to the followthrough attacks (essentially the DnD cleave feat). Again, I have no problem with the idea: my players and I have been using this for years. But I don't allow players to add naked avantages to powers they have not purchased themselves. If you want the triggered HKA, you have to buy an HKA.

 

Would you allow a player to buy "usable by others" and then grab the party mage and apply it to his spells?

 

#3 Related to the above, combining the player's powers and free powers. FH states (as I have done for many years that if you want to make a magic sword, you don't grab a sword and apply advantages - you have to pay points for the HKA too). But the rules take exactly the opposite tack with things like combat luck, allowing you to add it to armour. This is bad ju-ju, which unbalances the game.

 

I don't allow a player to buy two sets of chain mail at the armourers (DEF6) and wear them both to get DEF12. DEF 4 combat luck and DEF6 chain mail are DEF6, in my game. Same applies to magic. A mage in DEF8 plate with a DEF8 force field spell is DEF 8 unless the armour is also a spell.

 

Trust me on this - you don't want to do it any other way.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

Some questions/thoughts:

 

1) How do you not have 1d6 HKA + 1d6 HKA = 2d6 HKA in the Hero System? The deadly blow ability is pretty limited, and can simulate a variety of effects. The limitations are up to the GM really, and though I haven't worked it out myself, the writeup looks ok. Plus its a "!" power (and its optional anyway).

 

2) Haven't used naked advantages yet, but (off the top of my head), couldn't you use this to simulate a spell that makes weapons sharper (the armor piercing or penetrating advantage maybe). Its hard to do that another way (should the spell have the weapon built into it?) Of course, maybe a temporary transform would work as well. Have to look into it. But I definitely would not allow the mage-booster to work.

 

3) In the FH book, they specifically give an option (since the whole book is pretty much optional) to make a magic sword by only paying for the enhancements you add (the example on page 182-3 comes to mind). Kinda changes the "you have to pay for the HKA as well" idea (especiallly for new players - I'm not saying your game will change, mind you). I'd agree that a character making a magic sword couldn't just pick up one and enchant it (unless temporarily), but I wouldn't have him pay character points for the base sword (unless the fighters paid for theirs as well).

 

I also agree with the armor - some things have to be common sense. Most games do not allow multiple items that do the same thing to all apply at once.

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by Blue Jogger

There are certain powerful magics (that for GM sanity, if nothing else) should not be cast once per day or even once per week but only a few times per run of the campaign. Independent (and the loss of character points) reflects this. In some campaigns, painful magic just doesn't work. But when Gandolf screams, "NONE SHALL PASS!" I doubt he's using his None Shall Pass spell that can be cast 16 times a day.

 

 

Ermmm no he wasn't screaming there it was when he Fell with the Balrog he was a screaming....

 

besides did Gandalf buy all of his magic independant?

[Markdoc]

>>>How do you not have 1d6 HKA + 1d6 HKA = 2d6 HKA in the Hero System?<<<

 

Ummm. Because 1d6 HKA is a power. So is 2d6 HKA. Having two shortswords (2 x 1d6 HKA) does not allow you do do 2d6 HKA (greatsword) damage. Likewise, a character with 1d6 Aid cannot cast it twice and get 2d6 Aid. He's limited to a max of 6 active points.

 

 

>>Haven't used naked advantages yet, but (off the top of my head), couldn't you use this to simulate a spell that makes weapons sharper (the armor piercing or penetrating advantage maybe). Its hard to do that another way (should the spell have the weapon built into it?)<<<

 

Why not buy extra CSLs to do damage. Why not buy Aid? Why not buy increased HKA? You could, as you suggested, buy transform. There's lots of ways of doing it. Practically the only thing I would not suggest is letting charcaters buy advantages and then add them to free ordinary weapons and equipment.

 

In previous Hero games supplements the rules have been pretty clear. Normal equipment was free, but if you wanted "special stuff" you bought it with points.

 

>>>But I definitely would not allow the mage-booster to work.<<<

 

It is of course, built using exactly the same mechanism, although I was joking when I posted it, just to make a point.

 

>>>In the FH book, they specifically give an option (since the whole book is pretty much optional) to make a magic sword by only paying for the enhancements you add (the example on page 182-3 comes to mind).<<<

 

Yeah, which is odd since it specifically states in the enchanting magic items section that you can't. OK, FH is big book, and it was written quickly so the occasional snafu is to be accepted, I guess.

 

>>>>but I wouldn't have him pay character points for the base sword (unless the fighters paid for theirs as well).<<<

 

I see your logic, but disagree utterly, based on experience. As noted above, heroic level games have always run on "ordinary stuff is free, special stuff you buy". Mike, an old GM of mine, used exactly the approach you suggest and within a short time, warrior mages with their magically-enhanced armour and weapons had exterminated every other character archetype.

 

In FH, because you are at the bottom of the scale, being able to go from 3d6 HKA to 4d6 HKA is essentially the same as halving the effect of heavy armour and eliminating light armour totally (the extra damage simply cancels the DEF out). Plus you get extra stun damage a well! And you can do this very cheaply if you don't have to pay for the first few dice of HKA. Likewise 12 DEF armour is more than twice as good as 6 DEF armour since it essentially eliminates any BOD damage from 90% of weapons. If you let people do this, then for a small number of points you get a warrior mage who is all but immune to normal weapons, but whose own weapons essentially ignore armour. A few more points spent on protection against magic and you get a combat machine that can only be stopped by another warrior mage, whose enhanced weapons are balanced against his opponent's enhanced armour.

 

Now you CAN go this route: I have just finished my Runequest conversion to Hero where every character IS a magically enhanced warrior. But putting these rules dodges in FH essentially makes this the default, which is a truly dreadful idea.

 

cheers, Mark

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Originally posted by Blue Jogger

There are certain powerful magics (that for GM sanity, if nothing else) should not be cast once per day or even once per week but only a few times per run of the campaign. Independent (and the loss of character points) reflects this. In some campaigns, painful magic just doesn't work. But when Gandolf screams, "NONE SHALL PASS!" I doubt he's using his None Shall Pass spell that can be cast 16 times a day.

 

Well, in The Fellowship of the Ring wargame, he's using the same power he does when fightning Saruman earlier. The 'why he doesn't die' power is a bit more mysterious.

[Talon]

Originally posted by WhammeWhamme

The 'why he doesn't die' power is a bit more mysterious.

 

Because he is a divine being, not a mortal wizard.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Because he is a divine being, not a mortal wizard.

 

Nah, that was just a radiation accident to let him spend some XP and switch some psych limits around...

[OddHat]

On a related note, Tolkien didn't have any mortal wizards did he? I thought all of them were Angels or fallen Angels with the terminology switched around.

[Yamo]

On a related note, Tolkien didn't have any mortal wizards did he? I thought all of them were Angels or fallen Angels with the terminology switched around.

 

Depends who you ask. Somewhere, Gandalf mentions either knowing or formerly knowing all the spells in the tongues of men, orcs, etc. That would seem to imply that such can cast spells, at least to a limited degree. I also believe that the Mouth of Sauron is mentioned as having learned dark sorcery from his master.

 

That's at least some precedent, but others disagree.

[Talon]

It's pretty clear that the Black Numenoreans had magic ability. Also, the elves effectively had magic, at least in the making of items. But I don't think any mortal had flashy, combat-type magic.

[Checkmate]

Thoughts On Gandaulf

 

Personally if I were to make Gandaulf a D&D character I wouldn't make him a Wizard at all. He always seemed more of a druid to me.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Markdoc

>>>How do you not have 1d6 HKA + 1d6 HKA = 2d6 HKA in the Hero System?<<<

 

Ummm. Because 1d6 HKA is a power. So is 2d6 HKA. Having two shortswords (2 x 1d6 HKA) does not allow you do do 2d6 HKA (greatsword) damage. Likewise, a character with 1d6 Aid cannot cast it twice and get 2d6 Aid. He's limited to a max of 6 active points.

 

It may be splitting hairs, but the swords bit is common sense. To me common sense and concept outweigh the rules in every case.

 

>>Haven't used naked advantages yet, but (off the top of my head), couldn't you use this to simulate a spell that makes weapons sharper (the armor piercing or penetrating advantage maybe). Its hard to do that another way (should the spell have the weapon built into it?)<<<

 

Why not buy extra CSLs to do damage. Why not buy Aid? Why not buy increased HKA? You could, as you suggested, buy transform. There's lots of ways of doing it. Practically the only thing I would not suggest is letting charcaters buy advantages and then add them to free ordinary weapons and equipment.

 

In previous Hero games supplements the rules have been pretty clear. Normal equipment was free, but if you wanted "special stuff" you bought it with points.

 

I'm just having a problem understanding how you could use some of the above. The CSLs is easy. Aid wouldn't work - the rules seem to specify that its for specific powers (so you could use it as a 1d6+1 HKA sword you paid cps for (regular sword mind you), but it wouldn't do squat if you lost that sword and picked one up off the ground. You could do AID to STR (no figured, only damage with weapons maybe?) I wouldn't allow AID to HKA for any weapon that's picked up, though. Increased HKA : 1d6 HKA sword is bought (no cp), added damage (2d6 HKA - 30ap base, red end (0) +1/2 = 45 ap, focus oaf -1, real weapon -1/4 = 20 real points). {limitations from FH p 176, they don't use independent for the weapons either - hate to lose points that way I guess} STR min lowers it still, but not enough to make it a viable option in my book. How would you do CSLs for the dragonslayer skill (add 1d6K damage to any attack done to dragons with any weapon)? The only way I could see is 6 skill levels (30 pts for +6 HTH), maybe limited with only for damage (-1/4 probably, maybe -1/2), and only vs dragons (-1/2 + depending on how rare dragons are) at a maximum thats 17 points, but could be less.

 

>>>>but I wouldn't have him pay character points for the base sword (unless the fighters paid for theirs as well).<<<

 

I see your logic, but disagree utterly, based on experience. As noted above, heroic level games have always run on "ordinary stuff is free, special stuff you buy". Mike, an old GM of mine, used exactly the approach you suggest and within a short time, warrior mages with their magically-enhanced armour and weapons had exterminated every other character archetype.

 

In FH, because you are at the bottom of the scale, being able to go from 3d6 HKA to 4d6 HKA is essentially the same as halving the effect of heavy armour and eliminating light armour totally (the extra damage simply cancels the DEF out). Plus you get extra stun damage a well! And you can do this very cheaply if you don't have to pay for the first few dice of HKA. Likewise 12 DEF armour is more than twice as good as 6 DEF armour since it essentially eliminates any BOD damage from 90% of weapons. If you let people do this, then for a small number of points you get a warrior mage who is all but immune to normal weapons, but whose own weapons essentially ignore armour. A few more points spent on protection against magic and you get a combat machine that can only be stopped by another warrior mage, whose enhanced weapons are balanced against his opponent's enhanced armour.

 

Now you CAN go this route: I have just finished my Runequest conversion to Hero where every character IS a magically enhanced warrior. But putting these rules dodges in FH essentially makes this the default, which is a truly dreadful idea.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I've found the exact opposite to be true, mainly because there are many ways to separate characters and items. Having a character lose 3-4 points and its not a major play stopper. Take away 20+ points and the players go ballistic (I would too). Foci in champions are rarely lost permanently - at least not without redoing the character - the points involved are usually very big). All the items I've used in FH have been independant. So anyone can use them, and they can be taken away permanently. A player may lose a few points, and it hurts, but its not a game breaker. And if a character does decide to put all his eggs in one basket, then maybe his next character will be built differently.

 

That line of thought also begs the question of how you do experience and magic items. Do you have the characters pay cp for all items they find? Or are there no items to be found - everything must be created personally? The latter would limit all fighters - "You want to enchant a sword? Get real mr warrior - ask the mage to use his cp for you" (I don't let a character use another's cps for items BTW - you may do it differently). Can you explain how you run that in your game - I'm interested in hearing how you do it. I've juggled several ideas for my latest campaign, but have nothing concrete. One would be a set pool (say 10 pts/character for this example), with all treasure points coming out of this pool (ex - 4 characters play this session; total is 40 points. Magic items total 33 character points worth. 40-33 = 7 /4 = 2 (rounded). Characters get 2 xp plus the items, and those they can divide however they want (which can make 'unbalanced' characters - although this is not a major deal for me).

 

Anyway - the only other comment I have is that the idea of a FH default is funny to me, since the default changes for each campaign (everythings an option until the GM says its ok for his game) - although I believe I do understand what you mean.

[PhilFleischmann]

FH Perks

 

Another "Random FH Problem" I've found as I gradually wade through the thick book:

 

Spirit Contacts? O.K. fine, but why is there a x2 multiplier to the cost without there being some desciption of why the contact is twice as useful? It seems like having to pay for special effects.

 

If I can have a contact with the local wizard for the normal cost, why should I have to pay twice as much for a spirit? The book gives no definition as to why. Are they twice as likely to help you? No. Are they half as difficult to get in touch with? No, in fact the book gives examples which imply that they may be more difficult to get in touch with. Do spirits know twice as much? Maybe, but the book doesn't say. Is their knowledge twice as useful? Maybe but the book doesn't explain why. Do they have twice as much influence they can exert on your behalf? Who knows?

 

And another perk that seems incompletely defined: The various Rank perks (nobility, religious, military, etc.). What exactly is it that a Grand Duke gets for his 9 points that a Baron doesn't get, having spent only 4? It's not a bigger castle - that would be covered under the Base perk. It seems to me that the actual title isn't worth anything - only what that title gives you. If you're a king with a small kingdom of 10,000 square miles and 1,000,000 subjects, I'd say thats worth the same as being a duke in a huge kingdom where your duchy is 10,000 square miles and contains 1,000,000 subjects. Without some defining rules (or at least guidelines) the titles are meaningless. Perhaps they should have been saved for the specific fantasy setting books. (Being king of Virbenland, one of the main kingdoms in my campaign world, is probably worth the full 15 points, maybe more; but being king of Osai, a small, semi-nomadic tribe, is probably only worth 5.) They might as well have used "fantasy" titles:

 

gloof 1 pt

huba 2 pts

shmengee 3 pts

sub-hufarb 4 pts

hufarb 5 pts

grand hufarb 6 pts

frammis 7 pts

 

What's the point if we don't know what the actual benefits are? And why the heck do you have to pay to be a squire? What kind of a perk is that? All it is is the errand-boy to a knight! If anything you should get a disad for it (subject to orders, watched, etc.).

 

And besides, it wasn't until the 1600's, under King Edward, IIRC, that those titles were given a strict ranking. Prior to that time there was no functional difference between a count and a duke. It was only a matter of tradition what one's title was. It had nothing to do with the size of the demesne. Probably part of the reason why the titles are in that order is because of the political situation at the time: Ed just liked the current duke more than he liked the current earl.

[Jeff]

Re: FH Perks

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Another "Random FH Problem" I've found as I gradually wade through the thick book:

 

Spirit Contacts? O.K. fine, but why is there a x2 multiplier to the cost without there being some desciption of why the contact is twice as useful? It seems like having to pay for special effects.

 

If I can have a contact with the local wizard for the normal cost, why should I have to pay twice as much for a spirit? The book gives no definition as to why. Are they twice as likely to help you? No. Are they half as difficult to get in touch with? No, in fact the book gives examples which imply that they may be more difficult to get in touch with. Do spirits know twice as much? Maybe, but the book doesn't say. Is their knowledge twice as useful? Maybe but the book doesn't explain why. Do they have twice as much influence they can exert on your behalf? Who knows?

I think it might be because the benefits they can provide are generally of sorts that mundane contacts simply can't. That said, I'm not sure why one couldn't simply take that into account in the normal Contacts cost structure.

 

Another element might be that spirit contacts are possibly less geographically fixed than conventional contacts. But in that case, that multiplier won't be appropriate in case of spirits you can't contact outside a particular place, and FH leans against a discount in that case.

 

It might come down to "This is an unusual perk - make people pay an arbitrarily increased cost for it." I wouldn't claim that as a good reason.

[badger3k]

Re: FH Perks

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Another "Random FH Problem" I've found as I gradually wade through the thick book:

 

What's the point if we don't know what the actual benefits are? And why the heck do you have to pay to be a squire? What kind of a perk is that? All it is is the errand-boy to a knight! If anything you should get a disad for it (subject to orders, watched, etc.).

 

And besides, it wasn't until the 1600's, under King Edward, IIRC, that those titles were given a strict ranking. Prior to that time there was no functional difference between a count and a duke. It was only a matter of tradition what one's title was. It had nothing to do with the size of the demesne. Probably part of the reason why the titles are in that order is because of the political situation at the time: Ed just liked the current duke more than he liked the current earl.

 

A squire was a lot more than an errand boy, especially since he was nobility to begin with (I'm guessing you're paying for that, as well as the status of a knight in training), but it should be a package deal of skills and disads to my mind. I'd guess its the same thing as other perks though. They are all dependant on the campaign world. They are left deliberately blank for that reason. What's a perk in one campaign is not in another. I'd guess that you'd need to look at specific campaign books (like the upcoming hero book - the Turakian age (or something like it)) to see if they define any in the context of that game world. After all, FRED has the following: passport, local police powers, member of the aristocracy, head of state. What exactly are local police powers? Can I arrest anybody I want and interrogate them with a pistol whip to the head? Not in the US usually, but in some third world country? I'm assuming they left them vague for that reason. The same with the titles of nobility - would it be better to just list titles with no order to them (after all, would being a Duke in England be worth more than being the King of a tribe in the middle of the South Seas? Depends on how its used in the campaign, really.

 

Thems just my thoughts, really.

[Victor]

Re: Re: FH Perks

 

Originally posted by badger3k

What exactly are local police powers? Can I arrest anybody I want and interrogate them with a pistol whip to the head? Not in the US usually, but in some third world country? I'm assuming they left them vague for that reason.

That sounds a bit more like "Low Justice", to me. And while such behavior is generally presumed not to be tolerated in modern US law enforcement, it's not unreasonable that in some backwater county, a sheriff (or prison warden) might have that level of authority as well.

 

Now I suddenly have an urge to watch Cool Hand Luke again.

[Markdoc]

Still on the topic of Deadly Blow..

 

>>>It may be splitting hairs, but the swords bit is common sense. To me common sense and concept outweigh the rules in every case.<<<

 

In general I would agree. But why, in that case, introduce a rule that neither obeys the standard Hero system rules, nor makes common sense?

 

>>> Aid wouldn't work – snippage - I wouldn't allow AID to HKA for any weapon that's picked up, though.<<<

 

Well as a GM, that’s your choice, but it’s not how the rules define it. Aid allows you to enhance a specific power. Your power, your mate’s power, Tom Bombadil’s power, whatever. So Aid can be used on any HKA you pick up: or the ones your friend is carrying. To use it for the deadly blow effect, I would require the self only limitation, so it could NOT be used on other people’s HKA. So I have no problem with that. The big problem with Aid is that it is not a very cost efficient method to do this – it takes time to get the best effect out of AID. It remains a possibility , however, particularly since the active cost it can be limited down.

 

 

>>>How would you do CSLs for the dragonslayer skill (add 1d6K damage to any attack done to dragons with any weapon)? The only way I could see is 6 skill levels (30 pts for +6 HTH), maybe limited with only for damage (-1/4 probably, maybe -1/2), and only vs dragons (-1/2 + depending on how rare dragons are) at a maximum thats 17 points, but could be less.<<<

 

You have it pretty well: based on what’s previously published, “levels cannot be changed†is –1/2 and Steve appears to have given only vs Dragons –2. So the ability appears to have real cost of 11 – and_that’s_exactly_the_point! For no good reason that I can see this ability has been dropped down to 4 points by using a power construct never allowed in Hero system before. Like I said as soon I saw it I realized how abusive it was and red-lined it.

 

It gets worse. Imagine a Dwarf warrior with 18 STR and axe skill. Not an outlandish concept, no? The player buys deadly blow talent, "axemaster" defining it exactly as the "swordmaster" skill listed under Deadly Blow. It costs him a whole 7 points. Now you have a dwarf who - without levels, or martial arts, does 3d6+1 HKA with an ordinary battle axe. He could easily get up to 4d6, and with martial arts, levels and magic could go to 6d6, since he has a BASE damage of 3d6 (Eek!)

 

Not to mention he does two-handed sword damage with a hatchet.....

 

I'm sorry: the more I think about this construct, the more it stinks like a week-old corpse.

 

>>>I've found the exact opposite to be true, mainly because there are many ways to separate characters and items. Having a character lose 3-4 points and its not a major play stopper. Take away 20+ points and the players go ballistic (I would too). <<<

 

You are missing the point here. I am not discussing magic items but the ability to augment mundane items that the characters did not pay points for: my apologies since that was not obvious. If players can use spells to take ordinary, cost-nothing-but-money and upgun them, then essentially they get the benefits of the independant limitation, but without putting any points at risk. I am not suggesting for one minute that such characters make independant magic items: that would be stupid. What they can do – using the deadly blow construct exactly as per the rules - is take the “swordmaster power†toss on their standard magical limitation and get a +2d6 HKA which they can add to any mundane sword: for about 7-10 points. Pick up a mundane 2 handed sword, and if they have reasonable STR, you’re looking at a PC with a 5d6 HKA, doing an AVERAGE of 10 BOD to a fully armoured knight with each blow. Ick! And remember this is a spell they can use on any sword: no independant limitation involved, so you can’t take the attack away from them without depriving them of all swords. Perhaps you see now why this is really a BAD rule to introduce.

 

>>>>That line of thought also begs the question of how you do experience and magic items. Do you have the characters pay cp for all items they find? Or are there no items to be found - everything must be created personally? The latter would limit all fighters - "You want to enchant a sword? Get real mr warrior - ask the mage to use his cp for you" (I don't let a character use another's cps for items BTW - you may do it differently). Can you explain how you run that in your game - I'm interested in hearing how you do it. I've juggled several ideas for my latest campaign, but have nothing concrete. <<<

 

Player’s don’t pay Xps for found items in my games, unless some sort of special skill is needed. Sombody else has already paid the XP. In general, I run magic-poor games, so a magic sword is a big deal and I have bnever had the game get out of control. OTOH, if players want to make magic items they pay Xps. I do allow players other than mages to pay Xp, although it has to be handled in an appropriately “magey†way “I must draw 3 minims of your blood to infuse the sword with the essence of a warrior…etc leading to the loss of Xp. Otherwise as you point out, mage’s would rarely, if ever, make items for other people, and then when do all those magic swords come from?

 

Still, as you noted, players are reluctant to tie points up in independent items, and I assume NPCs are too, thus explaining why magic items are rare.

 

>>>Anyway - the only other comment I have is that the idea of a FH default is funny to me, since the default changes for each campaign (everythings an option until the GM says its ok for his game) - although I believe I do understand what you mean.<<<

 

I hope so: what I mean is that most published material is considered “official†by many players. If you DON’T want deadly blow in your game – as I don’t - then you have to explain to your players why not. In general I would much prefer that an "official" genre book stuck to the published rules, with perhaps suggestions on how and why you can choose to deviate from those. My biggest disappointment with FH is that it is full of deviations from Hero system, which don’t seem to have any good reasons behind them and no explanation as to why they were included. As a genre book, it makes it very much less useful.

 

cheers, Mark