FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

[Bismark]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Okay, I could write for days on what I'd like to see in FH6, but I'll pare it down to just three things. Be advised that I feel very strongly about these three things.

 

1. Balance the weapons table. That page is going to be one of the top three most referenced pages in the entire book. Muscle-powered weapons combat obviously figures extremely prominently in fantasy. Don't have certain weapons be better in all ways than other weapons, as in FH5 and Hero 6th. You'll never convince everyone that your weapons chart is perfect based on "realism", but you can make a case for game balance. FH is supposed to skew cinematic anyway, so please don't penalize players that want to use axes instead of spears.

 

Seconded here ; I have always thought that the weapons were a bit 'off' - a few comments below:

 

a. To be honest, I think that the STUN is way too high for a lot of 'real weapons' (taking lots of STUN from a non-penetrating arrow hit to the head seems very dubious, for example).

 

b. The hammers/maces doing +1 STUN multiplier; unless there are serious (and actually rather excessive) STR minima applied to these kinds of weapon to keep the damage done by 'average' PCs down, they are so much better against most opponents than swords are that it is rather embarrassing. AP (or Piercing) Normal Damage seems to be more appropriate for these weapon types (since they are basically refined clubs).

[Old Man]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Good points, but I personally don't even care about that stuff so long as there isn't any particular weapon that is obviously superior or inferior to everything else on the chart. In 5th, spears were just outright better than swords in every way, for example.

[Steve Long]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

OK, let's bring this to a screeching halt right now.

 

Do not derail this thread discussing weapons damage. A suggestion has been made. That's all that needs to be done here; nothing else particularly needs to be said.

 

Gamers have been going round and about this topic for years. Please don't waste time doing it all over again here. Thank you.

[RexMundi]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Don't think damage will be a factor really with the re scaling of the X die in 6e to begin with. Anyway, here's an Idea I wouldn't mind seeing especially if we are talking about full color art.

 

1. How about a comparative Art Page, for the various STYLES Of Fantasy....Take a Guy with an Axe, then draw him, Pulp Fantasy Style, High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, etc etc etc ......Lot of folks always Explain the differences between the types of Fantasy, but I can't recall anyone actually showing a Visual difference. Could showcase some interesting art as well.

 

~Rex

[Nolgroth]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

1. How about a comparative Art Page' date=' for the various STYLES Of Fantasy....Take a Guy with an Axe, then draw him, Pulp Fantasy Style, High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, etc etc etc ......Lot of folks always Explain the differences between the types of Fantasy, but I can't recall anyone actually showing a Visual difference. Could showcase some interesting art as well.[/quote']I like that idea.

[Susano]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

I like that idea.

 

Perhaps a splash page divided into four sections: swords and sorcery (i.e. Conan), epic/high (i.e. LOTR), low (i.e. Norse saga), and D&Dish?

 

And on the totally wishful thinking side, you get Frazetta (RIP) to do the swords and sorcery panel, John Howe or... the other concept artist from the LOTR movies to do the high fantasy panel, Jim Fitzpatrick to do the Norse/Irish saga art, and the guy who does all of that awesome Pathfinder art for the D&D panel.

[Nolgroth]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Perhaps a splash page divided into four sections: swords and sorcery (i.e. Conan), epic/high (i.e. LOTR), low (i.e. Norse saga), and D&Dish?

 

And on the totally wishful thinking side, you get Frazetta (RIP) to do the swords and sorcery panel, John Howe or... the other concept artist from the LOTR movies to do the high fantasy panel, Jim Fitzpatrick to do the Norse/Irish saga art, and the guy who does all of that awesome Pathfinder art for the D&D panel.

I'd be happy with less expensive, yet still talented homage artists.

[Susano]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

I'd be happy with less expensive' date=' yet still talented homage artists. [/quote']

 

I'm betting Storn would love to take a crack at it.

[RexMundi]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

More I think about it the more I like the idea actually. Would certainly work for a splash page.

 

~Rex

[Susano]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Here's a thought -- dealing with races that are inherently better than humans. Tolkien's elves were better than men at just about everything. They were taller, stronger, faster, more skilled (and so on). Heck, as I understand it, even the Na'vi from Avatar are like that (10' tall and so on). So perhaps a note about how other races don't need to balance. Unlike older forms of D&D (and FH) you don't need to reduce your elves' CON and STR to make up for their increased DEX and INT (and so on).

[The Main Man]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Going back on my "Magic and Technology" suggestion, the ATRI scale could be used, and then various examples of magical technology could be displayed.

 

So if we're talking ATRI 2 (Animal Power) then that's just classic fantasy and you would have magical swords and armor and the like.

 

If we go up the scale some, like say, ATRI 5 (Electrical Power) then we might see magical pistols or even cars.

 

Go even further to ATRI 8 (Atomic Power) for example, and now we're basically talking Final Fantasy 7.

[Steve]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Here's a thought -- dealing with races that are inherently better than humans. Tolkien's elves were better than men at just about everything. They were taller' date=' stronger, faster, more skilled (and so on). Heck, as I understand it, even the Na'vi from Avatar are like that (10' tall and so on). So perhaps a note about how other races don't need to balance. Unlike older forms of D&D (and FH) you don't need to reduce your elves' CON and STR to make up for their increased DEX and INT (and so on).[/quote']

 

I agree with this, and in the case of really Epic Fantasy, you can have some races that are quite a bit more capable than humans. One example I can think of from an RPG are the original humanoid inhabitants of the Shadow World setting, the K'ta'viiri.

[The Main Man]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

I find "superior races" to be a largely self-balancing issue if the PCs are given the same number of points to work with. It does become an issue when Racial templates do not count towards total points (or something of the like).

[Susano]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

I find "superior races" to be a largely self-balancing issue if the PCs are given the same number of points to work with. It does become an issue when Racial templates do not count towards total points (or something of the like).

 

Okay, but how do you deal with something akin to the Fellowship? The hobbits are not built on the same number of points as (say) Gimli or Boromir, much less Aragon, Legolas, or (especially) Gandalf.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Going back on my "Magic and Technology" suggestion, the ATRI scale could be used, and then various examples of magical technology could be displayed.

 

So if we're talking ATRI 2 (Animal Power) then that's just classic fantasy and you would have magical swords and armor and the like.

 

If we go up the scale some, like say, ATRI 5 (Electrical Power) then we might see magical pistols or even cars.

 

Go even further to ATRI 8 (Atomic Power) for example, and now we're basically talking Final Fantasy 7.

I kind of like this idea, but my main thought is that something like the ATRI scale could be applied to magic. One society could have weak, rudimentary magic (purifying food, nudging weather patterns, reversing the course of diseases, detecting gold) while another has a more moderate level (causing acute illnesses, throwing flames, warding against undead), a third has powerful magic (calling lightning from the sky, quickly healing injuries, teleporting through walls), and a fourth is nearly godlike (opening the ground to swallow armies, predicting the future). Not many settings would use such a thing, but I think enough would -- or at least would benefit from the general idea -- that a page could be devoted to it.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Okay' date=' but how do you deal with something akin to the Fellowship? The hobbits are not built on the same number of points as (say) Gimli or Boromir, much less Aragon, Legolas, or (especially) Gandalf.[/quote']Doesn't Champions (of which I don't yet have a copy) have something about using Heroic Action Points to balance such groups? A similar idea could apply here.

[Susano]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Doesn't Champions (of which I don't yet have a copy) have something about using Heroic Action Points to balance such groups? A similar idea could apply here.

 

Not sure, as I haven't read it. I'm just finishing up 6E2... then on to Champions and eventually The Ultimate Base.

[The Main Man]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

I kind of like this idea' date=' but my main thought is that something like the ATRI scale could be applied to magic. One society could have weak, rudimentary magic (purifying food, nudging weather patterns, reversing the course of diseases, detecting gold) while another has a more moderate level (causing acute illnesses, throwing flames, warding against undead), a third has powerful magic (calling lightning from the sky, quickly healing injuries, teleporting through walls), and a fourth is nearly godlike (opening the ground to swallow armies, predicting the future). Not many settings would use such a thing, but I think enough would -- or at least would benefit from the general idea -- that a page could be devoted to it.[/quote']

 

Not a bad idea there either if I say so myself.

Having a rough standard like that for magic regardless of system would be akin to "Spell Levels"

[The Main Man]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

I think that having tips on how to portray each magic system would be helpful. For example, both Lovecraftian magic and D&D magic can summon extremely powerful beings but one is played for horror while the other is played for adventure.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

I was just writing out some stuff for a fantasy setting earlier today, and it occurred to me that some kind of guideline about "why bronze weapons are better than steel weapons" (for example) and such would be nice for settings in which both materials are used. Do steel ones have extra DEF, or built with higher damage, or what? Also, weapons made of silver are much softer than steel ones, though steel weapons might be silver-plated to be effective against both normal targets and those susceptible to silver... the real in-depth details on this are more appropriate for the Equipment Guide, but a basic structure would be nice for FH.

[Susano]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

I was just writing out some stuff for a fantasy setting earlier today' date=' and it occurred to me that some kind of guideline about "why bronze weapons are better than steel weapons" (for example) and such would be nice for settings in which both materials are used. Do steel ones have extra DEF, or built with higher damage, or what? Also, weapons made of silver are much softer than steel ones, though steel weapons might be silver-plated to be effective against both normal targets and those susceptible to silver... the real in-depth details on this are more appropriate for the Equipment Guide, but a basic structure would be nice for FH.[/quote']

 

Ahem... steel is better than bronze. Steel holds an edge better, doesn't bend as easily, and is lighter. A suit of armor in steel and one is bronze may give you the same DEF... but the bronze suit will weigh a heck of a lot more.

[Old Man]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Okay' date=' but how do you deal with something akin to the Fellowship? The hobbits are not built on the same number of points as (say) Gimli or Boromir, much less Aragon, Legolas, or (especially) Gandalf.[/quote']

 

You don't. No one would want to play Merry and Pippin in that game; they're practically comic relief. The whole point to points-based character construction is to ensure that each character is equally important in the campaign, if not in combat.

 

That said, hobbits could have higher point totals than one might suspect. They are noted for their physical and mental toughness, and indeed they are the only ones with any resistance to the Ring. So already we're talking about high CON, EGO, and DEX, plus elite woodcraft skills. They could easily be on par with Aragorn and Gimli. Gandalf, of course, would be built on more points.

 

Near as I can tell Legolas is the GM's character and his points total is infinite.

[Tasha]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Okay' date=' but how do you deal with something akin to the Fellowship? The hobbits are not built on the same number of points as (say) Gimli or Boromir, much less Aragon, Legolas, or (especially) Gandalf.[/quote']

 

I'm thinking that the hobbits have bought a ton of Luck, DCV and other inobvious defensive abilities. Also very good CON, & BODY. I guess I always thought that they spent their points in a different way than Gimili or Boromir.

[Susano]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

You don't. No one would want to play Merry and Pippin in that game; they're practically comic relief. The whole point to points-based character construction is to ensure that each character is equally important in the campaign, if not in combat.

 

That said, hobbits could have higher point totals than one might suspect. They are noted for their physical and mental toughness, and indeed they are the only ones with any resistance to the Ring. So already we're talking about high CON, EGO, and DEX, plus elite woodcraft skills. They could easily be on par with Aragorn and Gimli. Gandalf, of course, would be built on more points.

 

Near as I can tell Legolas is the GM's character and his points total is infinite.

 

I'll disagree with the "no one would want to play..." line. You and I might not, but there are people who would.

 

That said, I agree, the hobbits have points spent in a lot of ways that aren't apparent. However, I think that could make for a valid mention in party make-up. Which basically boils down to a combination of "in fantasy a character's strengths aren't always obvious" along with "make sure everyone has something to do/is involved."

[Old Man]

Re: FANTASY HERO -- What Do *You* Want To See?

 

Bingo.