Love for Non-Casters?

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Tylwill

Hmmm, I'll see if I can get my players to post their characters. Basically, there aren't any limitations beyond what is in the Core Powers site. So, other than trappings and such the powers available to a fighter are the same as to a wizard BUT special effects are everything and we enforce a strict story policy.

 

A fighter cannot just spontaneously have a flaming sword. He has to either:

1. Find one

2. Buy one

3. Learn to enchant one

4. Learn a power that enables him to sheath a sword in flame

 

Options 2-4 require money, time, and often a fair amount of both.

 

This is the role that magic items, spellbooks, and special locations play. Find a ring of protection, you can pay points to have a DCV bonus in a ring. Find a spellbook - you can learn new spells (possibly replacing the ones you currently have). Slay a dragon - quench your sword in it's blood and perhaps you can now have a flaming sword.

 

The same applies to martial techniques. Want to learn a sweeping blow (AE Adjacent, Selective)? Find a teacher and pay him to teach you.

 

The setting we use (Wilderlands) is hyper detailed with thousands of NPCs. It is very easy to look at the smallest village and identify something that can happen there, some trainer, or some thing that can build the story abilities.

 

Alcamtar

Well, it's been an interesting road, but I am definitely at my destination if not close to it. Part of it is here: https://sites.google.com:443/a/tekhed.com/wilderlands/main/encounters/converting-d20-challenges

But that is being revised. With the introduction of "Core Powers" I can map d20 CR to those same lines and then based on the Base Attack and Total Attack values of monsters adjust from those lines.

 

In a simple example, let's say CR 10 = 300 pts. That's 60 active (standard at-will), 12 OCV, 12 DCV, base rPD of 8, heavy rPD of 14.

 

So, if I look at a CR 10 monster and he has a Total Attack of +10 and a Base Attack of +7 I compare those to the "focused values" from d20 (CR 10 Fighter = +14 Total and +10 Base). I have all this in a chart (CR vs Total), but basically +10 actual/+14 focused = .71 * OCV 12 = 9. +7 base actual/+10 focused base = .7 * OCV 12 = 9. So, the monster has OCV/DCV 9. From that, based on Flatfooted AC I adjust the DEF as appropriate (I have similar focused value comparisons) and based on that I can see that if the monster has a 14 DEF he is considered "heavy" and should have a -3 DCV (that's from my chart). I also have focused damage baselines that I then apply vs. the 60 active point standard and then break it down as appropriate. If the creature has a lightning attack, I make it AP and +1 STUNx - since that is a 1/2 advantage and if the damage calc is 100%, then 8d6 damage it is (or 2 1/2d6K if that is more appropriate).

 

Anyway, that all get's done either in a matter of seconds or while the characters are deliberating about the latest death trap.

 

After a year and a half doing this I have some pretty good algorithms down and need no prep time (which I need so I can play while I finish my Narosia setting). The DCC modules are awesome and allow me to run a rich campaign, especially with the wilderlands materials, with 0 prep time. I was using the Mother of All Encounter Tables (published book) but have since coopted my friend's HackMaster books and use those monsters/random tables (fun AND dangerous).

 

I've tried to put most of my stuff on my site, so if you have questions I'm happy to answer.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Tylwyll: Sample Character - a paladin

https://sites.google.com:443/a/tekhed.com/wilderlands/files/SirIsaac-ScionofWelleran.pdf?attredirects=0

[The Suave]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I don't know how helpful this will be to anyone but I thought it was worth noting.

 

In previous FH games, I had a GM who used the /3 rule for the purposes of paying for spells. As a bit of an offset though, he required spellcasters to buy a significant number of points worth of elementary spells in the same school. His justification was that no wizard would go through the Fire Academy (or whatever) and come out knowing huge fire spells without knowing the basics. He used the /3 rule less as a way for wizards to know their spells, but as a way for wizards to actually be able to afford all of the spells they would actually be able to cast "realistically." (Obviously I'm using the word "realistic" in a certain amount of context.)

 

The /3 rule can be used as a way to allow spellcasters a points advantage, but only if you let it. Also, the mention of building non-caster abilities in frameworks (or even as anything but "+OCV +DCV +DC) is something I always forget about, and should remember in the future!

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I've always held that the Turakian /3 for spells is unnecessary and unfair. Remove it from the equation and the systemic problem goes away.

 

 

Baring any external restrictions by the GM non-casters can have any sort of ability the GM allows with a SFX other than "I cast a spell". In games where spellcasters can toss 200AP point effects it should be permissible for non-spellcasters to somehow manage a 200AP effect if they can come up with an applicable SFX.

 

And yes, I have experience with 300+ point games. I have experience with 75 point games and 1000+ point games. I've run low, middle, and high, epic and s&s. I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, drank the water, and ate the worm.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

For my homebrew fantasy setting, magic users buy their spells as slots in a multipower, so anyone wanting a 200 AP spell had better be prepared to shell out a heck of a lot of points for the reserve cost!

 

A 200 AP spell seems really inappropriate for a fantasy game when superhero games have AP limits around 80, anyway!

[Panpiper]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Hows this for a rule? You can only ever purchase a spell that costs in real points, a number equal to the number of spells you possess. So if you want to buy a spell that costs 15 real points, you have to already know 14 other spells. If you know 15 spells now, want to buy a spell that costs 20 real points, you would have to buy 4 other spells first. Nothing prevents you from making them cheap spells mind you.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Sometimes' date=' though, that's sufficient reason. I would balk at a PC in a gritty-pulp film noir environment who wanted to be able to shoot lasers out of his eyes. Likewise, in most fantasy games, I'd balk at a muscular barbarian character who wanted to buy flight "Because I'm the g-damn Batman" or something like that.[/quote']

 

That's sufficient reason... but it's also a different issue.

 

Powers (capital P) are SFX independent.

 

SFX are NOT genre independent, which is what you raise here and what Tywll mentions below. It is not inappropriate to have a FTL ability in a sci-fi game that emphasizes rubber science... but it IS inappropriate to have a FTL ability based on magic when magic is not contraindicated by the setting (so, a setting where magic doesn't exist).

 

No' date=' I still disagree. There are lots of powers (Telepathy, Faster than Light Travel, Dimensional Travel, et al) that stretch all manner of credulity and genre convention to apply 'martial prowess' onto. Wuxia, maybe. Exalted, possibly. But not every setting, and certainly not traditional high fantasy.[/quote']

 

No, they really don't. I promise. Well, they DO stretch genre convention and by extension they stretch credulity (excellent word, by the way). Again, this is a separate yet tangential issue. The Powers are SFX independent, I promise.

 

Think about it. How is it any more "believable" that a person can travel faster than life by chanting a few words and tossing some bat guano and suddenly the very fabric of reality itself WARPS to please them, vs. someone who just runs really fricking fast? They are EQUALLY unbelievable. You've just agreed to suspend disbelief for one and not the other because you've accepted it as canon. Question this acceptance, and you'll find yourself exploring a lot of new exciting possibilities that you weren't able to consider before. You'll also reaffirm some of your tastes (and they are just that, tastes, preferences, etc. Not rules) and enjoy them even more for having reminded yourself why you like them so much.

 

So, in sum: Powers are SFX independent. SFX are not genre or setting independent. Killer Shrike says pretty much the exact same thing.

 

 

Killer Shrike- you ate WHAT worm? Never heard that one before...

[Panpiper]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Killer Shrike- you ate WHAT worm? Never heard that one before...

The worm in the Tequila bottle, I expect.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Killer Shrike- you ate WHAT worm? Never heard that one before...

Just a Tijuana reference. Another way to say I've been around this particular space a bit.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Any reason for the double post?

 

What double post?

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I've always held that the Turakian /3 for spells is unnecessary and unfair. Remove it from the equation and the systemic problem goes away.

 

 

Baring any external restrictions by the GM non-casters can have any sort of ability the GM allows with a SFX other than "I cast a spell". In games where spellcasters can toss 200AP point effects it should be permissible for non-spellcasters to somehow manage a 200AP effect if they can come up with an applicable SFX.

 

And yes, I have experience with 300+ point games. I have experience with 75 point games and 1000+ point games. I've run low, middle, and high, epic and s&s. I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, drank the water, and ate the worm.

Knowing your dislike of Taurakian magic, I'm not surprised yoy feel that way. However i disagree that removing that rule makes the problem ho away. Your website is full of (cool) magic systems that provide some sort of cost break to the characters using them, whether its a normal one or one of your own devising. I don't see anything similar for non-casters, which is my point.

 

I never said noncasters couldn't have high ap abilities, and i'm somewhat mystified by the number of posters who keep implying that. What i said was that there aren't any easy cost saving techniques for them, at least not commonly used. And the limits of normal frameworks makes using them somewhat difficult for that purpose.

 

While i appreciate being told the level of games you've played, it doesn't really provide any useful feedback, which was what i asked for. Can u talk about the 1k fantasy game and how casters and noncasters compared? What advantage did the noncasters have to keep them competitive?

[Yansuf]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

What double post?

 

Good question.

It seems to have disappeared.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Knowing your dislike of Taurakian magic' date=' I'm not surprised yoy feel that way. However i disagree that removing that rule makes the problem ho away. Your website is full of (cool) magic systems that provide some sort of cost break to the characters using them, whether its a normal one or one of your own devising. I don't see anything similar for non-casters, which is my point.[/quote']

 

If you could draw my attention to specific cost breaks I can speak to them.

 

As to non-casters the site also has tons of non-magical special abilities, heroic knacks, and so forth, and the posted up characters reflect their use.

 

I never said noncasters couldn't have high ap abilities, and i'm somewhat mystified by the number of posters who keep implying that. What i said was that there aren't any easy cost saving techniques for them, at least not commonly used. And the limits of normal frameworks makes using them somewhat difficult for that purpose.

There is no equivalent to the Turakian / 3 method. Frameworks and Limitations on custom abilities are as available to non-casters as they are to casters.

 

 

While i appreciate being told the level of games you've played, it doesn't really provide any useful feedback, which was what i asked for. Can u talk about the 1k fantasy game and how casters and noncasters compared? What advantage did the noncasters have to keep them competitive?

At 1000 points all characters are god-like in their capabilities whether they are explicitly using "magic" or not. They do different things, and have different SFX, but they are all off the chart of "normal".

 

"Magic" is just a label; a spell or what have you is just a mechanic. You are creating the assumption of an imbalance and while I fully agree with you that using the Turakian / 3 this is a true assumption, I don't agree with you that its necessarily true if using the rules as written. If the GM prevents non-casters from having access to exceptional abilities its true, but that's on the GM.

 

This conversation has been had before, and I don't feel like investing the time in it again. I've demonstrated it before in past threads. A lot of characters are available for perusal. I know from my own past experience that many of the most powerful and dangerous characters from past campaigns were not spell casters. They did have what we now call "super skills", or "heroic knacks" as I used to call them in Fantasy parlance, or "feats" as we called them post-3e, etc rather than being built purely on stats and skills.

 

Now if I, or other GMs when I wasn't running, had precluded such abilities then it may have been (likely would have been) a different story. But as nothing prevents any character from having access to exceptional abilities other than GM bias / preference I consider it a self-fulfilling argument. Obviously if certain characters are allowed to take advantage of certain rules that other characters arbitrarily are not there is a capacity for unfairness; it doesn't matter what labels you attach to it.

 

Special price breaks subsidizing certain types of character are simply unfair if there aren't equivalent subsidies in place for all other types of characters. No argument.

 

Disproportionate access to special abilities limited to certain types of characters is also unfair. Again no argument.

 

The HERO System imposes access to special abilities by type of character; that's were you'll get an argument from me as it is simply not true.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

In a simple example' date=' let's say CR 10 = 300 pts. That's 60 active (standard at-will), 12 OCV, 12 DCV, base rPD of 8, heavy rPD of 14.[/quote']

Ahh, now that big table makes sense! Interesting idea. Thanks!

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

If you could draw my attention to specific cost breaks I can speak to them.

 

I'm not looking for justifications, I'm just pointing out that many (most?) of the systems provided allow a discount on the RC of the abilities they grant, be it by a method you have come up with or something like EC, MP and VPP. There is nothing commiserate for non-casters.

 

As to non-casters the site also has tons of non-magical special abilities, heroic knacks, and so forth, and the posted up characters reflect their use.

 

But none of those that I have seen (and I admit I could easily have missed something) are built in a point saving method for the noncaster character types.

 

Again, the issue is NOT about whether noncasters can get cool abilities or constructs, its about whether or not they have access to the same or similar systems of point breaks.

 

There is no equivalent to the Turakian / 3 method. Frameworks and Limitations on custom abilities are as available to non-casters as they are to casters.

 

I've yet to see a good justification for a warrior using a VPP, nor have I seen anyone try.

 

Nor have I seen systems similar to your plethora of magic systems (be they skill based, familiarity based, or whatever) that are built around the concept of people without supernatural abilities, or allow such characters the same cost reductions. Equally, I don't think something like Magecraft or your Vancian system (for example) make sense if you remove their sfx and its supporting context and simply say 'martial power'.

 

"Magic" is just a label; a spell or what have you is just a mechanic. You are creating the assumption of an imbalance and while I fully agree with you that using the Turakian / 3 this is a true assumption, I don't agree with you that its necessarily true if using the rules as written. If the GM prevents non-casters from having access to exceptional abilities its true, but that's on the GM.

 

I never said it was imbalanced, I said that similar systems are not common or well used for anything but spell casters. I'm looking for ways to combat this, hence the whole point of this thread.

 

Now if I, or other GMs when I wasn't running, had precluded such abilities then it may have been (likely would have been) a different story. But as nothing prevents any character from having access to exceptional abilities other than GM bias / preference I consider it a self-fulfilling argument. Obviously if certain characters are allowed to take advantage of certain rules that other characters arbitrarily are not there is a capacity for unfairness; it doesn't matter what labels you attach to it.

 

Again, I've not said anything about the non-casters being denied powerful abilities. But I've yet to see canon or fan-based material that gives non-casters similar point breaks. It is difficult, I think, to conceptualize such a system and that is partially why there aren't (m)any.

 

I think another issue is that warriors get their armor and weapons for free, so are already (arguably) getting a point break, so many people (my self included) think power users ought to get some kind of benny, but then the system seems to swing too far to their camp, leaving them overshadowing the warriors.

 

Special price breaks subsidizing certain types of character are simply unfair if there aren't equivalent subsidies in place for all other types of characters. No argument.

 

Disproportionate access to special abilities limited to certain types of characters is also unfair. Again no argument.

 

The HERO System imposes access to special abilities by type of character; that's were you'll get an argument from me as it is simply not true.

 

Good thing I never made that argument. What I said was that in existing canon and fan material that I am aware of almost all of it supports some kind of framework or cost reduction for 'magic users' while providing no guidance for something similar to warriors and skill users. I have all the FH supplements up to Tuala Morn, and there are no cost saving techniques recommended for noncasters like there are for casters. So Hero settings do in fact impose access to discounts by character types (or at least provide no advice on how to give those same discounts to other characters). For the majority who use the published material as a guide, this leads to a (perhaps incorrect) view that it is how the system should be used for this genre.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Tylwyll: Sample Character - a paladin

https://sites.google.com:443/a/tekhed.com/wilderlands/files/SirIsaac-ScionofWelleran.pdf?attredirects=0

 

Hey Mudpyr8, I can't seem to open that pdf...

[Ice9]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I'm not looking for justifications, I'm just pointing out that many (most?) of the systems provided allow a discount on the RC of the abilities they grant, be it by a method you have come up with or something like EC, MP and VPP. There is nothing commiserate for non-casters.

The equivalent to a framework would be ... a framework. There's no reason a martial character can't or shouldn't use a MP or even VPP - after all, the number of different combat moves alone, not to mention presence, luck, and skill based abilities, is potentially limitless. As for limitations, I pointed out a number of appropriate ones in my last post. But here's a concrete example:

 

Art of Assassination - Multipower, OIF(dagger of opportunity), RSR (KS: Anatomy), Limited Power: Only vs Creatures with Appropriate Body Structure, Limited Power: Target Must be at Reduced DCV, Linked, Conditional Power: Linked Attack Must Hit

1) Arterial Wound: HKA, NND, Does Body, Continuous, Uncontrolled (stopped by healing magic or successful first aid)

2) Blinding Strike: Sight Flash

3) Hamstring: Drain Running and Leaping

4) Arm/Shoulder Wound: Drain Strength and Dexterity, Limited: Only with arm.

5) Silencing Strike: Darkness (Hearing) 1", Uncontrolled, Sticky (only to stick to target), Limited: Only to prevent speech.

6) Stunning Attack: Suppress SPD, Instant. NOTE: Only needs to suppress momentarily to make target lose 1-2 phases.

[Ice9]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

From what I've seen here, and on other FH discussions, I find it interesting that in HERO - a definitively classless system - people seem to construct archetypes as restrictive as any class-based structure.

 

While there's certainly nothing wrong with a given character not using any magic, the dichotomy between "magic-users" and "warriors" seems a bit bizarre. In a world of magic and legend, where are the warriors who are blessed by the gods, or can ride the lightning, or enhance their skills with runic tattoos? Magic is a continuum, not a "warrior/mage" switch.

 

Also, while "magic can do anything, martial skill is limited to what seems realistically possible" is valid for a setting, "Bob's character can do anything, Joe's character is limited to what seems realistically possible" probably isn't right for a campaign. If you say magic trumps all, then either there should not be non-magic-using PCs, or they should explicitly be sidekicks. To do otherwise isn't a system problem, it's a setting/campaign problem.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

The equivalent to a framework would be ... a framework. There's no reason a martial character can't or shouldn't use a MP or even VPP - after all, the number of different combat moves alone, not to mention presence, luck, and skill based abilities, is potentially limitless. As for limitations, I pointed out a number of appropriate ones in my last post. But here's a concrete example:

 

Art of Assassination - Multipower, OIF(dagger of opportunity), RSR (KS: Anatomy), Limited Power: Only vs Creatures with Appropriate Body Structure, Limited Power: Target Must be at Reduced DCV, Linked, Conditional Power: Linked Attack Must Hit

1) Arterial Wound: HKA, NND, Does Body, Continuous, Uncontrolled (stopped by healing magic or successful first aid)

2) Blinding Strike: Sight Flash

3) Hamstring: Drain Running and Leaping

4) Arm/Shoulder Wound: Drain Strength and Dexterity, Limited: Only with arm.

5) Silencing Strike: Darkness (Hearing) 1", Uncontrolled, Sticky (only to stick to target), Limited: Only to prevent speech.

6) Stunning Attack: Suppress SPD, Instant. NOTE: Only needs to suppress momentarily to make target lose 1-2 phases.

 

Thank you Ice9, I think that is a pretty decent idea of what I'm talking about. Though I do think that a number of those effects should be encapsulated in the 'simulationist' level of a heroic campaign (i.e. when we have rules for impairment, bleeding, etc, then arguably hitting someone in the eyes/hamstring/etc should have an effect regardless of the abilities of the character that does the hitting), in a setting with all the reality knobs turned off, that would work as well.

 

I'd still like to see a framework that would add to a warrior's damage/fighting capability directly, tied to a weapon, that doesn't involve them 'buying' their 'free' weapon over again.

 

From what I've seen here, and on other FH discussions, I find it interesting that in HERO - a definitively classless system - people seem to construct archetypes as restrictive as any class-based structure.

 

Because most of the games and heroic fantasy literature that players are familiar with use those tropes? When most people play a fantasy game, those are the generic expectations they have?

 

While there's certainly nothing wrong with a given character not using any magic, the dichotomy between "magic-users" and "warriors" seems a bit bizarre. In a world of magic and legend, where are the warriors who are blessed by the gods, or can ride the lightning, or enhance their skills with runic tattoos? Magic is a continuum, not a "warrior/mage" switch.

 

Not all fantasy worlds are worlds of 'magic and legend'. Many fantasy worlds adhere to a strict division between the magical haves and the non-magical have-nots. And while I'm finding my tastes are leaning further and further away from the 'scientific magic' of most rpgs towards the more mythical magic, that feel is harder to ingrain and exists in far fewer systems to serve as examples (especially Hero and Hero settings were things are so explicitly statted out).

 

Also, while "magic can do anything, martial skill is limited to what seems realistically possible" is valid for a setting, "Bob's character can do anything, Joe's character is limited to what seems realistically possible" probably isn't right for a campaign. If you say magic trumps all, then either there should not be non-magic-using PCs, or they should explicitly be sidekicks. To do otherwise isn't a system problem, it's a setting/campaign problem.

 

And yet the non-powered vigilante and the super hero are valid concepts in a supers campaign?

 

I never said magic trumps all, nor would I want to say that. What I want to see are more examples of non-caster 'discounts' with as much variety and usability (and even breadth) as casters get.

[phookz]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Thank you Ice9, I think that is a pretty decent idea of what I'm talking about. Though I do think that a number of those effects should be encapsulated in the 'simulationist' level of a heroic campaign (i.e. when we have rules for impairment, bleeding, etc, then arguably hitting someone in the eyes/hamstring/etc should have an effect regardless of the abilities of the character that does the hitting), in a setting with all the reality knobs turned off, that would work as well.

 

I'd still like to see a framework that would add to a warrior's damage/fighting capability directly, tied to a weapon, that doesn't involve them 'buying' their 'free' weapon over again.

 

I think Ice9's example shows that. Sure, you could turn on impairment rules and hope for the best, but these powers provide a much better chance of achieving that effect.

 

Because most of the games and heroic fantasy literature that players are familiar with use those tropes? When most people play a fantasy game' date=' those are the generic expectations they have?[/quote']

 

To be fair, that's a problem with the setting, and no game system can balance that. It's the issue with D&D (pre-4e - I haven't played 4e but it appears to be more balanced than previous editions from what I've read), and pretty much any system I've seen that had wizards. The fantasy tropes that fiction is based on (ala Tolkien) should really have wizards as NPCs and plot devices - the rest of the group is rarely in the same league with them.

 

 

And yet the non-powered vigilante and the super hero are valid concepts in a supers campaign?

 

I never said magic trumps all, nor would I want to say that. What I want to see are more examples of non-caster 'discounts' with as much variety and usability (and even breadth) as casters get.

 

I think by definition you're going to have a hard time coming up with even semi-realistic builds that can match the breadth of magic. Magic is a free pass to do just about anything - based on concept alone it's going to be very hard to match that. That's not to say that you can't have a lot of options and cool tricks (feats, knacks, whatever) for the non-magic users, but you're not going to be able to match the versatility of magic without some pretty strict guidelines on what magic can and cannot do.

[Markdoc]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Thank you Ice9, I think that is a pretty decent idea of what I'm talking about. Though I do think that a number of those effects should be encapsulated in the 'simulationist' level of a heroic campaign (i.e. when we have rules for impairment, bleeding, etc, then arguably hitting someone in the eyes/hamstring/etc should have an effect regardless of the abilities of the character that does the hitting), in a setting with all the reality knobs turned off, that would work as well.

 

I'd still like to see a framework that would add to a warrior's damage/fighting capability directly, tied to a weapon, that doesn't involve them 'buying' their 'free' weapon over again.

 

Like this?

10 Multipower - Martial arts: 20 point reserve- requires sword (OAF, -1)

1 (u) Defensive Strike (17) +1 OCV, +3 DCV

1 (u) Disarm (19) + 5 STR for Disarm only (-1), +1 OCV, +1 DCV

1 (u) Fast Strike (20) +8 STR (only for strike, -1), +2 OCV

1 (u) Martial Block (10) +2 OCV, +2 DCV

1 (u) Martial Dodge (10) + 5 DCV

 

It's easy enough to "martial multipowers". The one above is a really basic one, which gives improved combat ability and also lets the user augment damage froma "free" weapon (note the cost is from my current 5E game, where STR was changed to 2 pts per pt of STR, and maneuvers such as martial dodge are based on augmenting an actual dodge).

 

Here's something a little more high powered:

45 Martial Arts Multipower (45 point reserve, An Ch'I and Fa Yengtao)

1 (u) Lotus Blossom Technique Block, +2 OCV, +2 DCV

1 (u) Superior Fist Technique Disarm,+1 DCV

1 (u) Flying Tiger Technique Dodge, +5 DCV

3 (u) Unfolding Lotus Blossom Technique 12PD force wall, Hardened (self and self's hex only -1/2)

3[ (u) ]Zheng Hsiang's Hand of the Dawn 4d6 Flash vs sight, unranged (-1/2)

4 (u) Delicate Whirlwind of Cheng Hwang 7d6 HA Area effect, adjacent, selective

4 (u) Rocksmashing Fist of Shih Ksien 10d6 HA Penetrating

4 (u) Fist of the Five Warriors 7d6 HA autofire, 1/2 END

4 (u) Fist of the Flashing Blade 2d6 HKA, Autofire

3 (u) Catapulting Blow of Loc Sun Pak 7d6 HA, Double Knockback

3 (u) Finger of Ice Technique 3d6 Drain vs STR, DEX, STUN, REC, END or Running/Superleap, one at a time (+1/4), Return rate 1 point per Turn (+1/4)

3 (u) Tiger in Bamboo Technique 2d6 RKA autofire (requires appropriate objects, -1/2)

3 (u) or 9d6 EB (requires appropriate objects to throw, -1/2)

2 (u) Seven Strikes of Serenity Entangle, Entangle takes no damage from attack (+1/2), Only works on humans (-1/4),unranged (-1/2), cannot be used on same target more than once per hour (-1/2)

2 (u) Tiger Jaws Grip 1" Darkness vs hearing (only to cancel voice of victim, -2) +15 STR (only for Grab, -1) +6d6 HA NND (targets throat without bonus or penalty, must follow grab, -1/2)

2 (u) Dancing Tiger Technique Missile deflection +5 (or dodging) (Arrows and thrown weapons)

 

The latter of these include effects that can be obtained with the impairing rules, but the martial artists with these powers can obtain the desired effect easily and reproducibly, reflecting ... well, skill, I guess.

 

It's not just fighting. "Thief" multipowers that include "superskills" such as invisibility, clinging or even chemistry are possible without pushing the total unreality button. Here's one such:

 

25 Poison pool VPP 22 point base, all powers must take KS: Poison roll (-1/2), Gestures (apply poison, -1/4), OAF, Potions and powders (-1), limited range of powers (-1/2)

Suggested powers

Hallucinatory toxin: Images to sight and tactile sense groups, cannot be defined by user (-1), only visible to victim (-1)

Corrosive spray: 1pt RKA, continous, uncontrolled, explosive, 6 charges lasting one minute, can be halted by washing afflicted area

Noxious cloud: 1d6 EB NND, area effect radius, 8 charges lasting 1 turn

Smoke cloud: Darkness to normal sight, 2" radius

Blinding powder: 1d6 Flash, area affect cone

Paralysing toxin: 1 point major transformation attack, cumulative, continous, uncontrolled at 0 END; transforms target to paralysed form (can be reversed by Chinese healing)

 

Not all fantasy worlds are worlds of 'magic and legend'. Many fantasy worlds adhere to a strict division between the magical haves and the non-magical have-nots. And while I'm finding my tastes are leaning further and further away from the 'scientific magic' of most rpgs towards the more mythical magic' date=' that feel is harder to ingrain and exists in far fewer systems to serve as examples (especially Hero and Hero settings were things are so explicitly statted out). [/quote']

 

That really falls in the province of the GM - all of the frameworks above came from a very low magic game I ran for some years. The PCs encountered some monsters: 2 ghosts, 2 Demons, 1 immortal, 2 vampires and a Tengu - in 4 1/2 years of regular play. 95+% of all encounters were with human opponents and magic was a peripheral affair - conflict was a matter settled by swords and armies, not magic.

 

In the current, more typical fantasy game, conflict is still mostly settled with swords, though both monsters, magicians and magic items all play a much more prominent role. However magic is still a more mystical thing, that involves making deals with powerful otherworldly beings. I actually had the players in last week's session saying things like "I'll cast the spell in the hour before dawn - that's the lady's hour and do it on the beach to gain a bonus from nearness to water, since that's her element". That's the kind of feel I was going for.

 

I never said magic trumps all' date=' nor would I want to say that. What I want to see are more examples of non-caster 'discounts' with as much variety and usability (and even breadth) as casters get.[/quote']

 

Hopefully these examples give some indication of the posibilities. I agree that current Hero books don't do a good example of presenting these possibilities (Valdorian Age is an exception) but if the GM is prepared to "build for the feel he wants" it's not that hard to do.

 

cheers, Mark

[Outsider]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Typical Warrior Freebies :

 

6 (24) 8/8 Armor OIF (-1/2), Mass (-1/2), Real (-1/4), Independent (-2)

 

20 (92) (92) Weapon Pool : OAF (-1), Real (-1/4), Str Min (-1/4), Independent (-2)

2u (19) (87) Melee Killing Weapons : 2D6+1 HKA Variable Advantage (+1), 0 END (+1/2)

1u (12) (52) Range Killing Weapons : 2D6+1 RKA, 0 END (+1/2)

1u (_6) (27) Melee Normal Weapons : 6D6 HA(P) 0 END (+1/2)

1u (_5) (-5) OCV Bonus : +1 OCV

1u (_3) (_3) Range Level : +1 vs Range

 

I dont have FH with me to check some of the more obscure weapon write ups, but I am pretty sure any of the ones there can be simulated using the weapon multipower above. Note that the power level is high enough to cover the largest weapons available, while the limitations on the pool cover only the smallest. Many large weapons, for example, will have more than a -1/4 limit due to Str Min, and will require 2 hands.

 

In any case, the point I am getting to is that warriors receive ~30 points worth of free gear.

 

IF this free gear is not available (or very useful) to casters for whatever reason, and one feels that this is unbalancing, then whatever rebalancing mechanism is put in place to address things shouldnt be worth more than about 30 points to said casters.

 

The problem with "Divide by 3" is that it only balances out if the casters spend only about 15 points on spells after dividing, and dont go on to spend any EXP on spells.

 

A better way to adress this imbalance (if you perceive it to exist) would be to provide casters with a couple of free spells (or minor magic items) that cover the same attack & defense basics and cost out to the same ~30 points.

 

 

In any case, as phookz said, I generally find that it isnt point cost issues that unbalance warrior vs caster so much as the breadth of powers available via magic.

[Tywyll]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

Hey Markdoc,

 

These are fantastic! Thanks for that. Though I have a couple of questions (not to pick nits, just to make sure I understand the system correctly)-

 

Like this?

10 Multipower - Martial arts: 20 point reserve- requires sword (OAF, -1)

1 (u) Defensive Strike (17) +1 OCV, +3 DCV

1 (u) Disarm (19) + 5 STR for Disarm only (-1), +1 OCV, +1 DCV

1 (u) Fast Strike (20) +8 STR (only for strike, -1), +2 OCV

1 (u) Martial Block (10) +2 OCV, +2 DCV

1 (u) Martial Dodge (10) + 5 DCV

 

1) Is this legal? I thought Special powers (i.e. skills or csl) couldn't normally be put into a Framework. This was one of the stumbling blocks I had trying to figure out 'correct' methods of savings for martial types, because my first thought was something like this.

 

2) The OAF requirement... is that tying it to a specific sword, or would 'sword of opportunity' (OIF, -1/2) be equally appropriate? (very fiddly question, I realize, just wanted to check).

 

3) I can't help but notice the similarity to Martial Arts, wouldn't this be handled equally well with MA?

 

4) The damage bonus from the increased Strength, it's still limited by the weapon's base DC's?

 

Here's something a little more high powered:

45 Martial Arts Multipower (45 point reserve, An Ch'I and Fa Yengtao)

1 (u) Lotus Blossom Technique Block, +2 OCV, +2 DCV

1 (u) Superior Fist Technique Disarm,+1 DCV

1 (u) Flying Tiger Technique Dodge, +5 DCV

3 (u) Unfolding Lotus Blossom Technique 12PD force wall, Hardened (self and self's hex only -1/2)

3[ (u) ]Zheng Hsiang's Hand of the Dawn 4d6 Flash vs sight, unranged (-1/2)

4 (u) Delicate Whirlwind of Cheng Hwang 7d6 HA Area effect, adjacent, selective

4 (u) Rocksmashing Fist of Shih Ksien 10d6 HA Penetrating

4 (u) Fist of the Five Warriors 7d6 HA autofire, 1/2 END

4 (u) Fist of the Flashing Blade 2d6 HKA, Autofire

3 (u) Catapulting Blow of Loc Sun Pak 7d6 HA, Double Knockback

3 (u) Finger of Ice Technique 3d6 Drain vs STR, DEX, STUN, REC, END or Running/Superleap, one at a time (+1/4), Return rate 1 point per Turn (+1/4)

3 (u) Tiger in Bamboo Technique 2d6 RKA autofire (requires appropriate objects, -1/2)

3 (u) or 9d6 EB (requires appropriate objects to throw, -1/2)

2 (u) Seven Strikes of Serenity Entangle, Entangle takes no damage from attack (+1/2), Only works on humans (-1/4),unranged (-1/2), cannot be used on same target more than once per hour (-1/2)

2 (u) Tiger Jaws Grip 1" Darkness vs hearing (only to cancel voice of victim, -2) +15 STR (only for Grab, -1) +6d6 HA NND (targets throat without bonus or penalty, must follow grab, -1/2)

2 (u) Dancing Tiger Technique Missile deflection +5 (or dodging) (Arrows and thrown weapons)

 

The latter of these include effects that can be obtained with the impairing rules, but the martial artists with these powers can obtain the desired effect easily and reproducibly, reflecting ... well, skill, I guess.

 

Very, very cool. I'm having a bit of a problem figuring out the sfx of a few of these, but the overall awesomeness cannot be denied!

 

It's not just fighting. "Thief" multipowers that include "superskills" such as invisibility, clinging or even chemistry are possible without pushing the total unreality button. Here's one such:

 

25 Poison pool VPP 22 point base, all powers must take KS: Poison roll (-1/2), Gestures (apply poison, -1/4), OAF, Potions and powders (-1), limited range of powers (-1/2)

Suggested powers

Hallucinatory toxin: Images to sight and tactile sense groups, cannot be defined by user (-1), only visible to victim (-1)

Corrosive spray: 1pt RKA, continous, uncontrolled, explosive, 6 charges lasting one minute, can be halted by washing afflicted area

Noxious cloud: 1d6 EB NND, area effect radius, 8 charges lasting 1 turn

Smoke cloud: Darkness to normal sight, 2" radius

Blinding powder: 1d6 Flash, area affect cone

Paralysing toxin: 1 point major transformation attack, cumulative, continous, uncontrolled at 0 END; transforms target to paralysed form (can be reversed by Chinese healing)

 

Thank you, that's an awesome way of using a VPP for a nonspell caster.

 

Though... wouldn't you just be able to buy potions and powders in a Heroic setting? Wouldn't it just be 'equipment' like a weapon or horse or car? Or is this for a setting where such 'equipment' is on the level of magic items?

 

In the current, more typical fantasy game, conflict is still mostly settled with swords, though both monsters, magicians and magic items all play a much more prominent role. However magic is still a more mystical thing, that involves making deals with powerful otherworldly beings. I actually had the players in last week's session saying things like "I'll cast the spell in the hour before dawn - that's the lady's hour and do it on the beach to gain a bonus from nearness to water, since that's her element". That's the kind of feel I was going for.

 

Wow... that sounds like an amazing game. I'd love to see your magic rules at some point if you don't mind sharing.

 

Hopefully these examples give some indication of the posibilities. I agree that current Hero books don't do a good example of presenting these possibilities (Valdorian Age is an exception) but if the GM is prepared to "build for the feel he wants" it's not that hard to do.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Thanks a lot, they really provided a lot of good food for thought!

[Manic Typist]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

There is nothing commiserate for non-casters.

 

There is. They are MC, VPP, and ECs (although ECs are going away in 6E if I recall correctly). Fortunately, several other posters have provided you with previous and subsequent examples to illustrate the point. I'm glad you find them of use in clarifying the point that we seemed to be unable to put across earlier.

 

 

 

Again, the issue is NOT about whether noncasters can get cool abilities or constructs, its about whether or not they have access to the same or similar systems of point breaks.

 

That is exactly true. The deciding factor of this is whether the GM permits non-casters to have access to the same or similar systems of point breaks. There's no mechanical reason (i.e. a rule) saying that they shouldn't, so it's only if the GM makes that call that it becomes a problem.

 

 

I've yet to see a good justification for a warrior using a VPP, nor have I seen anyone try.

 

Well, I'm not sure if that's true. You just (at first, you seemed to have changed your position somewhat) don't view martial arts as a good justification. Personally, I think martial arts gives an excellent justification for a Cosmic VPP... which a lot of caster builds lack.

 

 

 

Everything has been addressed, so... in summation...

 

There's really no reason that I'm aware of to deny non-casters access to these point saving frameworks other than simple GM preference/prejudice/bias/preconceptions.

 

 

Which, again, has been aptly demonstrated by some sample builds provided by HEROphiles in this very thread. Gotta love how eager we are to help each other out, right?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

 

I'm not looking for justifications' date=' I'm just pointing out that many (most?) of the systems provided allow a discount on the RC of the abilities they grant, be it by a method you have come up with or something like EC, MP and VPP. There is nothing commiserate for non-casters.[/quote']

 

I think you mean commensurate.

 

Anyway, again, you'll need to cite specifics. Most of the Magic Systems I provide are quite expensive, requiring a large investment of points. If you have a specific example in mind then we can have a discussion about it, otherwise not so much.

 

 

 

 

I've yet to see a good justification for a warrior using a VPP, nor have I seen anyone try.

 

Actually, funny you should mention that. Ask Wily Quixote about a certain character he played in one of my longest running Fantasy HERO campaigns by the name of Bendyr du Ryek. He was a warrior with a large VPP for heroic deeds. He was arguably the most powerful and successful PC in any of my Grey HERO campaigns. In the top three at the very worst.

 

The original version of Ollix Androwsen, the 1/2 Orc Assassin I ran in another GM's stint at the helm had an assassination VPP. The character was so lethal that he was only allowed to play one session. I made a watered down version that just used a drain vs body with a big Variable Advantage on it but alas the GM was once bitten twice shy and wouldn't let me play him. Then there was Hyonee the Snow Elf Giantslayer and her plethora of warrior and archery tricks bought as powers in various creative ways. And Jaram Glaive the knife master, also bought as powers. Oh, and Lethroc mur Lavore aka "Deadeye" and his plethora of dangerous super skill abilities. And...eh...you get the idea. Many characters over the years.

 

Nor have I seen systems similar to your plethora of magic systems (be they skill based, familiarity based, or whatever) that are built around the concept of people without supernatural abilities, or allow such characters the same cost reductions.

Again, what cost reductions are you referring to?

 

 

 

Equally, I don't think something like Magecraft or your Vancian system (for example) make sense if you remove their sfx and its supporting context and simply say 'martial power'.

They might or might not. Similarly the trappings of a warrior and effects built to support them might or might not make sense if you remove their sfx and say simple "spells". The mechanics are constructed to support a concept. They are separate from sfx, but that doesnt mean that all effects make sense for all sfx.

 

 

I have all the FH supplements up to Tuala Morn, and there are no cost saving techniques recommended for noncasters like there are for casters. So Hero settings do in fact impose access to discounts by character types (or at least provide no advice on how to give those same discounts to other characters). For the majority who use the published material as a guide, this leads to a (perhaps incorrect) view that it is how the system should be used for this genre.

 

This may be true. I don't use the published Fantasy HERO settings myself, and have no interest in them.

 

 

Personally, I design magic systems because a big part of what makes fantasy feel like fantasy for me is cool magic systems. Also, from my long experience with Fantasy HERO and counter to the occasional outcries from people such as yourself to the contrary, I've never felt that non-spellcasters were disadvantaged in any way in the HERO System. In fact, in all the campaigns I've run the most powerful, effective, and / or dominant member of every party was a non-spellcaster.

 

At any rate, you Tywyll are free to design "non-Magic Systems" to your hearts content. I would love to see them, and I'm sure others would to. Rather than complaining that they aren't as en vogue as Magic Systems, instead do something about it and starting making some. I'll even host them for you free of charge and with all due credit (if they don't suck). Others would offer you the same. Alternately you could sign up for my wiki, or Curufea's wiki, or create your own for that matter and post you non-Magic Systems up there for collaborative development.

 

{shrugs}

 

At any rate, I've spent more time on this than I intended. Hopefully, one way or another you'll get something that suits what you want. Good luck with your games!