A Question of Balance & Lethality

[Panpiper]

I've been away from tabletop gaming and therefor Hero System for the last fifteen years. Recently I caught the bug again and scoured my city for players and have scraped together less than a mere handful. My intent was to join a game as a player with an experienced GM. However the folks I've assembled are none of them in a position where they are prepared to run a game themselves, and so I find myself, the GM. And I find myself in a bit of a wicket.

 

When I left gaming fifteen years ago, the Fantasy Hero games we played considered a 2D6 HKA to be a decently powerful attack, 2D6+1 was 'really' good and 3D6 was virtually unknown. No resistant defenses stacked, and so full plate represented the pinnacle of protection. Our games were also typically virtually devoid of magic items. This is the sort of game I remember, this is how my mind thinks about the mechanics, balancing towards this power level.

 

I come back having skipped a couple of editions in the rules and I find that the game has changed massively. I see now that a starting fantasy character can easily muster a 6D6 HKA and 17 resistant defense (plus PD/ED), and this is without exceeding suggested guidelines by KillerShrike, whom I respect immensely. 6D6 HKA exceeds the power limit of our old 'superhero' games by 2D6! The game now seems to be one of herculean attacks to pierce gargantuan defenses to reach a tiny squishy center, such that one decent damage roll can one hit kill a typical character.

 

Am I wrong in this perception? Have I simply failed to grok how it all fits together to balance itself out? Am I making a huge error in wanting to eliminate Deadly Blow, extra DC levels in martial arts and restrict combat levels? Am I simply opening myself up to all sorts of end runs around a limitation on Combat Luck, that it only works if no other resistant armor is worn? I am no longer sufficiently intuitive with the rules, and certainly not familiar enough with the current rules, to be able to predict and accommodate the consequences of trying to reduce the lethality of the game.

 

Have you, the intelligentsia of Fantasy Hero, any advice for me? See Peter's 'House Rules' for Fantasy Hero - Version 1 for what I've given my players.

[TSandman]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Hi Peter...

 

First of all... your pic seems familiar... are you "The" Peter that was working at Le Valet d'Coeur years ago? If not, then.. well.. you look a lot like him

 

It's hard enough to find decent RPG players in Montreal these days, with all those WoW addict and others with no attention span for anything more than TCCs... I've played HERO a LONG time ago, when I was in Highschool... then dropped off (or more accurately, WAS dropped off by that particular group) and I could never find any other players willing to even TRY Hero...

 

Well.. I've finally managed to convince my current RPG group to switch to Hero (with the help of another player) because we were tired of trying to having to fit round pegs in square holes... trying to make our character concept match the rules/settings (that's what 6 years of bi-monthly Mage:The Ascension does to a group!)

 

Anyway... I'm currently working on building the groundrules for an Iron Kingdom based Fantasy HERO game and trying to find any scraps of info that would help... SIMPLE info that I can give to newbies of HERO... so I'll take a look at your homebrew rules, and don't mind if I steal some of them too!

[Nevenall]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

You are not crazy, the general trend you've missed is to make more character concepts possible and to recognize that it's up to the GM to determine the ground rules of a campaign and say no to abuse. Deadly Blow, as you have recognized, has a place for things like backstabbing, but it's not something you want to see a character buy three times.

[Panpiper]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

... your pic seems familiar... are you "The" Peter that was working at Le Valet d'Coeur years ago?

Hello TSandman. Heh. Yes, I am indeed "The" Peter that was working at Le Valet d'Coeur years ago. (For anyone else reading, that was 'the' game store for Montreal for the ten years I worked there as manager and buyer, and I sold a lot of Hero.)

 

I don't know how helpful my own guidelines will be for you as I am largely stumbling through that dark myself. Fifteen years ago, all this would have been a snap to me, but time and changes to the game have eroded my old skill with the system. I wrote those out as a necessary part of figuring things out, and posted them hoping to get feedback from people who know the game better than I.

 

Let me know if you want more meat at the table. I am GMing with one group right now but would welcome the chance to 'not' GM with another. ;-) (Oh, and by the way, if your French is halfway decent, there likely is room in that other group for you if you want, Saturday afternoons.)

[azato]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

I will look over your guidelines later...but to answer your question you are not alone. The Hero System is a tool kit. In order for it to scale to meet the needs of those wanting it emulate other settings/systems, it is necessary to have that capability. People like you or myself will choose not to allow players the complete freedom to take "whatever" just because it is in the rule book.

 

I have a game I hope to run some day that is post-apoc where the players will have firearms and practically no armor (neither will most of the npcs). This will make combat something they will try to avoid because when it does happen...it is going to be ugly.

 

 

Hello TSandman. Heh. Yes, I am indeed "The" Peter that was working at Le Valet d'Coeur years ago. (For anyone else reading, that was 'the' game store for Montreal for the ten years I worked there as manager and buyer, and I sold a lot of Hero.)

 

I don't know how helpful my own guidelines will be for you as I am largely stumbling through that dark myself. Fifteen years ago, all this would have been a snap to me, but time and changes to the game have eroded my old skill with the system. I wrote those out as a necessary part of figuring things out, and posted them hoping to get feedback from people who know the game better than I.

 

Let me know if you want more meat at the table. I am GMing with one group right now but would welcome the chance to 'not' GM with another. ;-) (Oh, and by the way, if your French is halfway decent, there likely is room in that other group for you if you want, Saturday afternoons.)

[Blue Jogger]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

My biggest advice is always, always, write up or discuss what the campaign is going to be like... without even thinking about the system, at least at first.

 

I am currently running a very low-powered, high-magic world. Most of the players whine about how few points they have (they start out as 50 points), but they manage to one-kill the weak monsters and not get hopelessly slaughtered by big creatures. It is high magic in that they seem to find lots of magical treasure, none of it very helpful in terms of raw combat potential, but useful because elven chain mail, even when it is ceremonial and a bit worn (DEF 5 instead of 6) is more comfortable to wear than most wool clothing and can be slept in. The rest are wearing elven leather armor which is DEF 3 (but also comfortable enough to sleep in).

[Markdoc]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Just to add to the mix, I agree, with what's been posted. I tend to run lower-magic games (there is powerful magic in game, it's just designed to be not readily accessible in combat, so PCs tend more toward swords and axes for solving combat problems).

 

I use much the same solutions you have - Deadly Blow was banned as soon as I read it - the implications were obvious (and from what I understand, the 5E version of Deadly Blow has now gone away, to be replaced with a more expensive - but better balanced - version in 6E). Likewise, in my games, defence stacking is generally banned (the exception being that defenses bought with points do stack: that's not so much of a problem, since I've found it's hard for a mage to be invulnerable and still do much else, and such powers are rarely "always on").

 

With those safeguards in place, you can play the kind of game you seem to grok: in my current game the best armour the players have is DEF6 (better armour exists, but is not well suited to the sort of guerilla warfare they are currently engaged in). The biggest attack is 2d6 AP (a greataxe). And that's after more than 4 years continuous play with these characters. Capping off defences and attacks like this essentially prevents the arms race often seen in games.

 

cheers, Mark

[mayapuppies]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

I'm pretty much par with everyone else here. Just because you CAN have that high of numbers, doesn't mean you HAVE TO ALLOW that high of numbers.

 

Kamarathin is the same way, if I saw someone working the angles to get those kinds of numbers I'd slap them with a GM stick.

[Vondy]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

I would echo most of what has been said here. All of the options are good, but not all of the options are appropriate for every genre, or even every game within a genre. Most of them are good for simulating various effects, but you have to think carefully about what you are attempting to emulate and whether the option fits it. My fantasy games tend to be "hard-fantasy" with relatively rare magic. Its not necessarily weak, but its not common. Its generally via summoning or innate abilities of a creature, or pseudo-magical effects of various plants. For this I tend to keep defenses and damage low - and don't let them stack. Resistant Defenses run 6-8; Damage caps around 6DCs. I do allow skill levels to be dedicated to exceeding this. If I were to run a more over-the-top high magic action oriented style game I'd consider more options and higher caps.

[Panpiper]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

My biggest advice is always' date=' always, write up or discuss what the campaign is going to be like... without even thinking about the system, at least at first.[/quote']

Ok, I took your advice Blue Jogger and added the following to that other post I made with my first attempt as detailing guidelines. Likely I now need to perhaps fiddle with that first draft.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1936908&postcount=2

 

I do appreciate the responses folks, thank you. I am still not sure if I am missing anything crucial. I think that's because I am looking at such a wide and disparate range of source material. More reading, more fiddling, more note taking, to do no doubt. There are no shortcuts. ;-)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

In HERO, everything is relative. Numbers mean nothing in a vacuum; they are only meaningful in comparison to something else.

 

 

Combat Luck is a useful ability for modeling the cinematic and fictional habit of lightly armored (or no-armored) characters to somehow just not get hurt. It facilitates a certain type of character, allowing them to be competitive with armored and magic aura'd characters. There are other ways to accomplish the same goal, but CL is a convenient mechanism to do so.

 

Similarly Deadly Blow models a variety of abilities seen in fiction and movies. Main characters just tend to be more lethal than shmucks in Fantasy literature and films based upon it. The HERO System actually makes it pretty difficult to kill due to its superheroic roots, which doesn't always match up with more lethal genres.

 

Deadly Blow and Combat Luck happen to be symmetrical abilities. Both are also Talents, making them available even in campaigns where custom "Super Skills" aren't allowed. If you allow one it makes sense to allow the other. In moderation, both abilities are IMO a good thing, allowing players to invest points directly into being more survivable or more lethal rather than forcing a more roundabout implementation.

 

 

However, both have the potential to unbalance a game if ungoverned. A GM should IMO ride herd on the upper end of these abilities. This can be done as a pure judgment call, but it helps to have it written down so that its fair and out there for all players to see and thus I provide recommendations. Context matters; the recommendations given are for the range of High Fantasy games the High Fantasy HERO site is all about. The recommendation for lower powered or less "high" games might be different on a case by case basis.

 

 

As an aside, in the last Fantasy campaign I ran, the average attack was in the 3 to 4d6 range counting STR, MA's, Deadly Blow, etc, but some outer-edge, special scenario attacks ranged up to 5d6 or more. Resistant Defenses ranged from 9 to 15, so the lethality index was high. Blocks & Dodges (and other defensive options) were popular. With a couple of exceptions the players first characters out of the gate favored attacks over defenses, and had glass cannon issues. Of 9 original PC's, four survived to the campaigns end, but characters created later were better balanced as the players had learned their lesson.

 

 

My style is basically darwinistically collaborative. Though there are some things I disallow out of hand such as Travel Powers UAA and fully Cosmic VPP's, I generally try to allow players to play the characters they envision and find ways to make it work so long as their ideas don't create an unfun situation for another player. If I think they are making a mistake or making a flawed character I tell them, but if they want to proceed...well, its their character. I don't make NPC's that can do things I wouldn't let a player character do at an equivalent power level. I try to be as fair and even-handed as I can. However, I play the setting straight and don't pull any punches; the dice fall as they may. The strongest character designs prosper, flawed character designs fail,and that's just the way it is.

[Panpiper]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Ah KillerShrike, I would dearly 'love' to play in a game such as yours, where one can truly cut loose with their min/max skills and spend XP to awesome effect. ;-) Any encounter would get one's blood racing as one was put to the test to see if they had made a critical error, tactical decisions being all the more critical, because there would be little room for error. That would be an exciting and memorable game.

 

But the prospect of 'GMing' such a game fills me with dread. Player characters built the way I know I can build them would literally cleave through armies of the regular soldiers I've postulated. They really could depose kings. The only way to avoid that would be to make a regular grunt 'way' stronger then the normal characteristic maxima would suggest they aught be. Already giving them all an average strength of 13 is kind of pushing that. (Or not, in a muscle powered weapon society, it makes sense that soldiers wielding that muscle powered weaponry would beef up from the norm.) That or have a plentiful supply of elite bodyguards on the same level as the players (which too is not that much of a stretch). To challenge such characters, one would need war trolls, not goblin raiders.

 

So that's the quandary. I want to be able to define a world in which a relatively normal soldier makes sense, that is at the same time more than a match for a single goblin. And yet I want to be able to have the player characters be surrounded by goblins and make that actually be scary to them. And when I tell them that the door is being smashed in by a war troll 'while they are so surrounded', I want them to fear.

 

Trope Irongrip, Deathdealer, built for 'your' game, would in my world all by himself leave all those goblins in a heap with the war troll as a cherry. ;-) (And that would neatly describe the paintings his concept is derived from, would it not?)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Well, I would say that a game in which normal guards are intended to be a challenge for experienced characters isn't really High Fantasy. Inexperienced characters, sure, but in High Fantasy, and even Sword & Sorcery and some Epic Fantasy, salty vets should be able to scoff at local militia and shmuck gaurdsmen on a 1:1 or even 3:2 basis (three guards per two heroes). They are elite, and it should take either other elites or disadvantageous numbers to slow them down.

 

But that's ok, because as the GM I can stock the pool with the appropriate kind of threat for a given situation. If the PC's are supposed to be able to swagger around and be tough, I can stock the area w/ weaker threats. If they are supposed to feel challenged or be faced with a problem that force can't solve I can make that happen too. As the GM, we can bring the level of the game up or down as we need to in any given situation to keep the game fun, interesting, and challenging.

 

 

But, again, its all relative. It doesn't really matter how high or low the stats are, it only matters in comparison to something else. So, in this case, guardsmen. If you want normal guardsmen to be challenging then the PC's stats should be on par or slightly above or below the average guardsman. If you want guardsmen to be really hard then the PC's stats need to be consistently lower than the guardsmen. This is true at all levels of play in the HERO System. It doesn't matter if PC's are 500 point supers; if they are fighting 750 point opponents then they feel "weak"; if they are fighting 350 point opponents they feel really powerful - even though their numbers are the same.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Ah KillerShrike, I would dearly 'love' to play in a game such as yours, where one can truly cut loose with their min/max skills and spend XP to awesome effect. ;-) Any encounter would get one's blood racing as one was put to the test to see if they had made a critical error, tactical decisions being all the more critical, because there would be little room for error. That would be an exciting and memorable game.

Yes, its usually an edge of the seat experience.

 

But the prospect of 'GMing' such a game fills me with dread. Player characters built the way I know I can build them would literally cleave through armies of the regular soldiers I've postulated. They really could depose kings. The only way to avoid that would be to make a regular grunt 'way' stronger then the normal characteristic maxima would suggest they aught be. Already giving them all an average strength of 13 is kind of pushing that. (Or not, in a muscle powered weapon society, it makes sense that soldiers wielding that muscle powered weaponry would beef up from the norm.) That or have a plentiful supply of elite bodyguards on the same level as the players (which too is not that much of a stretch). To challenge such characters, one would need war trolls, not goblin raiders.

I generally build stock NPC's by combining a Race Package and a Profession Package or two using the Packages on my site, which I refer to as Templating. If they are named or special, I spend more time personalizing, but for stock NPC's its wham bam done. Weaker NPCs generally get a Race + a Base Package and work out to around 50 to 75 points but some just get an Extension Package and are really underpowered. More elite stock NPCs are basically the same as starting PC's; when they start approaching within about 50 points of the PC's point range they are no longer stock and get a name and some individualization.

 

So that's the quandary. I want to be able to define a world in which a relatively normal soldier makes sense, that is at the same time more than a match for a single goblin. And yet I want to be able to have the player characters be surrounded by goblins and make that actually be scary to them. And when I tell them that the door is being smashed in by a war troll 'while they are so surrounded', I want them to fear.

 

As far as goblins and whatnot, don't underestimate the power of hordes to overwhelm even powerful heroes. Coordinated Attacks and the Teamwork Skill can really level a playing field. Even absent that attrition can catch up eventually. Nickle and dime plinks add up. Even if you had, say, 50 point goblins swarming 200 point veteran heroes, if the goblins can get a point of BODY through 1/6th of the time then 60 of them attacking en masse have a chance to take down a 10 BODY opponent over time. It's time consuming to adjudicate and not the sort of encounter players likely want to slog through regularly, but you could definitely build a set encounter around such a scenario. You can also up the ante and use the environment...so for instance 4 PCs vs 400 irritated goblins, in the dark, underground, during an earthquake above a river of lava...that's way scarier than a troll.

 

 

Trope Irongrip, Deathdealer, built for 'your' game, would in my world all by himself leave all those goblins in a heap with the war troll as a cherry. ;-) (And that would neatly describe the paintings his concept is derived from, would it not?)

 

Its good to be iconic and butch. But I promise you he'd still be challenged

[TSandman]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Hello TSandman. Heh. Yes' date=' I am indeed "The" Peter that was working at Le Valet d'Coeur years ago. (For anyone else reading, that was 'the' game store for Montreal for the ten years I worked there as manager and buyer, and I sold a lot of Hero.) [/quote']

 

Ha! then you'd probably recognize me if it wasn't for that Greenish tint my Avatar has We met a few times, mostly owing to the fact that I was part of the Maisonneuve Con. organization team that brought a few guest to MTL

 

I don't know how helpful my own guidelines will be for you as I am largely stumbling through that dark myself. Fifteen years ago' date=' all this would have been a snap to me, but time and changes to the game have eroded my old skill with the system. I wrote those out as a necessary part of figuring things out, and posted them hoping to get feedback from people who know the game better than I.[/quote']

 

I'm in the dark too... Last time I've played HERO was with the Big Blue Book in '88... never could play since At least YOU got the idea that xd6 of KA is powerfull or not... I'm trying to figure out how to bring this to a joyfull band of Hero Newbies that are used to World Of Darkness and D&D. I want to be able to give them latitude on character creation but not leave them in the dark with all the powers (not yet anyway) so I have to do all the legwork. Any ideas that makes this simpler and easier for me works.

 

Let me know if you want more meat at the table. I am GMing with one group right now but would welcome the chance to 'not' GM with another. ;-) (Oh' date=' and by the way, if your French is halfway decent, there likely is room in that other group for you if you want, Saturday afternoons.)[/quote']

 

Well, I'm my scheduled games are on sunday afternoons/evening... but we're rather... tight for space (we're up to 9 players when full... *NOT* an easy group to mange... oh and you'd recognize some, I'm sure... quite some characters in there ;p)

 

My french is quite decent, see? got it right here on my character sheet, it says "Native Language"

[TSandman]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

My biggest advice is always' date=' always, write up or discuss what the campaign is going to be like... without even thinking about the system, at least at first.[/quote']

 

*THIS* is the most important thing, IHMO... it's where it can make the GM life Heaven or Hell... or no game at all.

 

I am currently running a very low-powered' date=' high-magic world. Most of the players whine about how few points they have (they start out as 50 points), but they manage to one-kill the weak monsters and not get hopelessly slaughtered by big creatures.[/quote']

 

We've found that low powered games forces us to push imagination to the max, how not to rely on Magic/combat/etc to go forward, but to use our heads not to get killed

 

However, sometimes you need variety and go high-powered for a change

[Panpiper]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Well' date=' I would say that a game in which normal guards are intended to be a challenge for experienced characters isn't really High Fantasy.[/quote']

I would expect my characters to be able to handle such normal guards with relative impunity given equal numbers, but not casually. There would be some risk of unjury, and if the guards have decent numbers on their side, there aught to be serious danger. Note however that my game is not intended to be 'high' fantasy but rather on the lower side of epic.

 

But' date=' again, its all relative. It doesn't really matter how high or low the stats are, it only matters in comparison to something else.[/quote']

I want guardsmen to be tougher than goblins and on a par with orcs. I want 'starting' player characters to be tougher than guards and orcs but less tough than trolls. I want the 'players' to have to gang up on a troll to bring it down. I am fine with players building themselves up to be the equal of trolls as that gives me time to acclimatize and figure out what the next step is after herds of trolls. ;-)

 

I generally build stock NPC's by combining a Race Package and a Profession Package or two using the Packages on my site, which I refer to as Templating.

I shall have to invest in Hero Designer. I had figured if I was going to be a player, it was unnecessary. But for a GM it is obviously well nigh essential.

 

As far as goblins and whatnot' date=' don't underestimate the power of hordes to overwhelm even powerful heroes. Coordinated Attacks and the Teamwork Skill can really level a playing field.[/quote']

I am clearly behind the times. We had no such skills back in 'my day'.

 

Its good to be iconic and butch. But I promise you he'd still be challenged

And were it not for a continent separating us, I would be beating down your door for a place at your table. ;-)

[Panpiper]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Ha! then you'd probably recognize me if it wasn't for that Greenish tint my Avatar has We met a few times' date=' mostly owing to the fact that I was part of the Maisonneuve Con. organization team that brought a few guest to MTL[/quote']

I expect I would probably recognize any 'hard core' gamer over the age of 30 in this city. And they me as well.

 

I'm in the dark too... Last time I've played HERO was with the Big Blue Book in '88... never could play since At least YOU got the idea that xd6 of KA is powerfull or not...

Ok, true enough that if you are completely new to the system, my advice is better than none. ;-)

 

My french is quite decent' date=' see? got it right here on my character sheet, it says "Native Language" [/quote']

Would you care to join us on Saturday afternoons then? We are four at the moment and would welcome the addition.

[Ice9]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Just curious, but doesn't a 2d6KA for something like a greataxe fall a little short against normal human opponents? If we assume an average person with 8 BODY and no armor, then:

* An average strike to the body won't quite drop them to bleeding - they can walk away and eventually heal up with no risk of death.

* An average strike to the neck/head will drop them, but won't quite kill them - they could still survive if they were bandaged quickly.

 

Now for many weapons, that seems fine. But for a large weapon, against a fully undefended foe, it seems a bit odd.

[TSandman]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

I shall have to invest in Hero Designer. I had figured if I was going to be a player, it was unnecessary. But for a GM it is obviously well nigh essential.

 

That is a MUST now... cut down time to build anything, and has most big nasty bugs squashed... if you KNOW what you want, you do not even have to crack open any books

[Panpiper]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Just curious, but doesn't a 2d6KA for something like a greataxe fall a little short against normal human opponents? If we assume an average person with 8 BODY and no armor, then:

* An average strike to the body won't quite drop them to bleeding - they can walk away and eventually heal up with no risk of death.

* An average strike to the neck/head will drop them, but won't quite kill them - they could still survive if they were bandaged quickly.

 

Now for many weapons, that seems fine. But for a large weapon, against a fully undefended foe, it seems a bit odd.

I do not know how the rules today would treat something like that. But 'back in my day' 7 body would be an impairing wound that would take a standard 'thug' out of the fight. The bleeding rules we used stipulated that an impairing wound would be bleeding (though at a slower rate than negative body) and the character would die without medical attention. 7 body to the head or vitals would translate to 14 body and would be an instant kill (full body in one hit). All this assumes no armor of course. Wearing chainmail (plate was rare in our games), such 2D6 attacks were survivable most of the time, but a few such strikes would fell an opponent, often through stun loss.

 

Also, a 'greataxe' in our game would have been be a 2D6+1 weapon. Nitpicky I suppose. ;-)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

Just curious, but doesn't a 2d6KA for something like a greataxe fall a little short against normal human opponents? If we assume an average person with 8 BODY and no armor, then:

* An average strike to the body won't quite drop them to bleeding - they can walk away and eventually heal up with no risk of death.

* An average strike to the neck/head will drop them, but won't quite kill them - they could still survive if they were bandaged quickly.

 

Now for many weapons, that seems fine. But for a large weapon, against a fully undefended foe, it seems a bit odd.

 

It's the System Bias I reference. By default, using the standard equipment lists, its difficult to kill people outright. It is far more common using default rules and gear to knock people out. Things that make the game more lethal are optional or a house rule.

 

Finding the right combination of settings to dial in the level of lethality desired is what this series of articles is all about:

 

Lethality Options

[Panpiper]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

For the record I intend to use Killer Shrike's Arms & Armament Variant in my game, even though his higher end weapons wind up being a damage class or two higher than what I was used to back when. As his weapons chart does a truly excellent job of differentiating the various weapons and giving them all very clear advantages and disadvantages. While under the standard system, there is little reason to not buy as many 2 point +1 OCV levels as one can get away with for their favorite weapon, with Killer Shrike's list you may well be better off being more flexible and carrying two or three weapons for different situations. His list makes for a more interesting and tactical game.

 

Unfortunately Brunt is too dumb to use anything other than a club. ;-)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

For the record I intend to use Killer Shrike's Arms & Armament Variant in my game, even though his higher end weapons wind up being a damage class or two higher than what I was used to back when. As his weapons chart does a truly excellent job of differentiating the various weapons and giving them all very clear advantages and disadvantages. While under the standard system, there is little reason to not buy as many 2 point +1 OCV levels as one can get away with for their favorite weapon, with Killer Shrike's list you may well be better off being more flexible and carrying two or three weapons for different situations. His list makes for a more interesting and tactical game.

 

Unfortunately Brunt is too dumb to use anything other than a club. ;-)

 

I'd like any feedback you might have on it. We put it to very good use in a couple of campaigns, and it really helped differentiate weapon users. It especially encouraged people to use "unusual" weapons such as whips and very specific sub-types of more common weapons.

 

Some quirkiness did crop up when Magic weapons entered the mix as they were built as straight up powers, but we instituted the following rule and it worked itself out:

 

MAGICAL WEAPONS

Magical Weapons do not use this System; they are designed as Power Constructs in the normal fashion. Alternately, the base damage appropriate to a category can be purchased, and if the Real Weapon Limitation is applied the resulting "Magic Weapon" gains the benefits of a similar normal Weapon as defined in the following system.

[mayapuppies]

Re: A Question of Balance & Lethality

 

I used your weapon system as a guideline for the weapons in Kamarathin. While I didn't use the full system, I used the high points and it has proven to make the weapons far more interesting.