Magic Items vs. Exp.

[mongoose]

I believe Badger3k posted this in a thread back a while but I don't think anyone really answered him so I wanted to start a fresh thread on the topic.

 

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

 

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

 

Other games like D&D simply allow the GM to award players with "treasure" at their leaisure. This has always been the thorn in my side with Fantasy Hero. Those points for magic items always have to have come from somewhere.

 

So I handle it the following way......

 

First I altered the Independant rule. If you take this limitation for whatever reason you don't actually ever lose those points. Instead, once the item is destroyed they go into a "pool" if you will, that slowly returns to you over time. So if a Mage creates a potion/scroll/sword/whatever, those points stay locked into the item UNTIL it is destroyed (or used up) then those points transfer into the pool and trickle back home to be used again. Why would I do this? Well, based on the way experience is awarded you are not going to get very far exp wise sitting is a dusty library transcribing scrolls. So anyone who puts points into mundane magic items that get used up is crazy. But if he gets those points back after being used, he can continue to crank them out if desired (or spend them to say raise his INT.) Now if the Mage wants to make more powerful items he will have to go adventuring to get more exp. You could even decrease the Independent limitation to say -1.5 to reflect this. This system of "trickle back" allows for the creation of lots of minor magics that get used up (although until the mage sells that stockpile with all his exp locked inside he might reach an impass.) without permanent exp loss.

 

Now I handle treasure aquired in a similar fashion. If you find a sword or dragon slaying, great! Keeping it is another matter entirely. If you use it in an adventure or two then sell it, no experience cost, it was merely transient booty. BUT, if you decide to keep it and make it your own you are required to pay a portion the experience you gain in every adventure until you have "paid it off". This number is up to you but, like a car payment, the quicker you pay it off the sooner you can move on to getting that new stero system! If the character wants he can hold experience just for such an occasion but it's not necessary. As in the previous paragraph though, when the character starts paying to own that item those points begin to slowly return to the maker, allowing them to make more swords of slaying. If a character loses an item or decides to sell it in leiu of something better he will get all those points back, but not immediately, making upgrading to a new keepsake more difficult or time consuming.

 

This system does have it's own set of minor issues but it preserves the most important thing. Your characters "special" equipment will be reflected in their point totals keeping everyone relatively balanced, and creating items is not a crippling event for said creators.

 

That's how I handle it and it's worked quite well for 12 years. I would like to hear other opinions on the subject though so post away!

[Rick]

If a player want a specific Magic item, and asks for it there will be a ep cost fpr it. However as a GM giving out a magical item from time to time is cool for the PC's. It is in of itself a reward for experience.

[Old Man]

The whole idea of having to pay cp for an item you find is ridiculous, and it's one of the misconceptions many non-Hero gamers have about FH. Having to pay cp for an item you make is reasonable but stupid, because if you lose the item you lose the cp.

 

Note that paying cp for found items would have been pretty difficult because we never bothered to do the math. This magic sword is +1 OCV and -3 STR min and inflicts an additional pip of kill damage per full die against certain critters, so if you were hitting for 2d6+1 it goes up to 2d6+3.

 

That magic sword increases (or decreases) your STR to 20 (exactly) when wielded.

 

That other magic sword over there is heavy, so you have to spend a full phase to get it moving and you always strike last in the phase, for plenty of damage.

 

Not that any of this is impossible to do in hero terms, but why bother?

[Vondy]

I'm with the Ancient One on this one.

 

Paying CP for items you start play with, or which you make yourself is reasonable to a certain extent, but charging CP for items the players come across in a heroic level game is patently dumb.

[Guest Keneton]

In general equipment is free regardless of type in heroic level campaigns. If your character designs an independent item, he/she will get a great deal of bang for the buck with an independent item, but eventually it will be lost as will the points. In most cases this is 3-7 points anyway so no big deal.

 

[Markdoc]

I'm with the crowd on this one. If a player wants to *make* an independant magic item, then they pay XPs. That's reasonable and fits with my game's theory of magic.

 

I explain to the player that they must not whine if/when the item goes walkabout.

 

On the other hand, if a player FINDS a magic item it makes no sense at all, that it magically disappears in "next week's episode".

 

Just imagine: Gandalf bursts into Frodo's hobbit hole on a really bad hair day.

G: "Is it secret? Is it safe?"

F: "Oh, I decided to improve my elvish instead. It's just, you know, gone"

 

In my game, the ring hangs around because long, long ago Sauron made it an independant magic item and paid the Xp for it. THAT's where the Xp in the item come from, so the maths all balances :-)

 

cheers, Mark

[Talon]

I used to allow spending points at character creation for items, but I've grown less thrilled with the idea, as it tends to lead to characters designed around uber-items, so that the player is far too attached to the item and far too upset when it goes bye-bye.

 

For post-creation items, I use the rules that put cp into magical components, so item creators are using those points instead of their own. I would probably allow someone to use their points to up the power of an item if they wanted to though.

[Galadorn]

Magic Items as Followers

 

I think the followers rules would work well for magic items, since as the thread originator said, points returning over time is a good idea.

 

Better thought is how magic items are treated in fantasy literature. How are they treated in fantasy literature?

 

I will stick to three divergent views on magic items in fantasy literature:

• 1. In The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, magic items, once acquired, were permanent fixtures to a character. For example Glamdring, once acquired by Gandalf, never left his side. In fact this magic item was so powerful, that its destroyed a Balrog's flametongue, when Gandalf paried the flametongue with Glamdring.
   
  2. In the the Elric Saga, Stormbringer was really a character itself. You could even say that Elric was Stormbringer's follower, but still Stormbringer never left Elric's side.
   
  3. In The Sword of Shanarra, the Elfstones were a permanent item on the protangonist's item list. But the Sword of Shannarra was a transitory magic item, with a one-shot effect.

 

I can think of no fantasy series in which magic items were not treated as a permanent part of the character inventory, except with the Sword of Shanarra, which is one item in this entire novel, and maybe Conan's magic items.

 

So the trend, to my recollection, is that magic items are treated as permanent items, and the philosophy of these items as being temporary, is an anomaly to Fantasy Roleplaying Games. Even items with charges were replaceable, if they were used up before.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Markdoc

In my game, the ring hangs around because long, long ago Sauron made it an independant magic item and paid the Xp for it. THAT's where the Xp in the item come from, so the maths all balances :-)

 

But keep in mind, that relevant to Bilbo's adventuring days, the item was a permanent fixture to Bilbo. Secondly, the One Ring was a plot device, not intended for Sauron's use, but to push the story forward.

 

Who treats NPC genesis as balanced and relevant to PC genesis anyway? Is Mechanon balanced for the game? Is Doctor Destroyer balanced?

 

Fact is, the NPCs have as many points as the GM wants him to have, PCs don't work within the same parameters.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by D-Man

I'm with the Ancient One on this one.

 

Paying CP for items you start play with, or which you make yourself is reasonable to a certain extent, but charging CP for items the players come across in a heroic level game is patently dumb.

 

I agree. But there has to be some type of limitation on magic items, the question is, what is it? In D&D 3rd Edition, there is a gold piece cap on magic items relevant to character level. I think this is a good idea, something along these lines seems o.k. with me.

 

Problem is, in my book, that magic items are wild cards, one wrongly placed magic item can throw the whole campaign off.

So what to do? I think the agent/follower rules could apply, using 5 active points per 1 point of character points paid. If the item is stolen the points come back like agents points do.

 

So, to sum up, we could have:

 

1. Items treated as agents.

2. A magic item limit cap.

3. Independent limitation modifiers.

4. Or general wildcard havoc.

 

I'm not sure which is best to go with either, or which combination may work.

[Greatwyrm]

Originally posted by Talon

For post-creation items, I use the rules that put cp into magical components, so item creators are using those points instead of their own.

 

Are these in FH and I missed them or have you developed a system of your own?

[Vondy]

Personally, I think the best management tools are GM tightwadism and forcing the role play of item creation.

 

The GM doesn't have to hand out magic items right and left. I've been in games (and tend to run games) where characters had 1 - count it - 1 magic item that was a fairly consistent fixture (and a part of their overall story), though the average has been 2-3 items of significant cool factor and an the on again off again availability of consumable items (magic dates, potions, scrolls, whatnot).

 

The GM can also require the role play of permanent item creation in lieu of, or in addition to (my personal favorite), character points. If the player has to acquire "the secret of enchanting steel" as well as an assortment of rare, expensive, and dangerous to acquire components, and perhaps even the participation of the mage in the forging process (what if he has to learn the craftsman's skill too - ouch!) then permanent item construction by pcs will drop dramatically.

 

The one that worked for me was this: Permanent Item Creation automatically incures a Con Drain (1-3d6 depending on the items power) with a recovery rate of per season. Yeowch!

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that, unlike DnD, you don't have to design monsters so that they can only be hurt by magic. Cold Iron, Consecrated Weapons, A Specific Wood, Silver, and Fire are all good substitutes. If players know this is the case they won't be desperate for magic items because they aren't essential to survival as they are in DnD. Its all a matter of style.

 

I tend to employ all of the above tactics.

 

My favorite fantasy hero character, now 500 points, has the following permanent magic items:

 

The Blade of Truth (kept in a mountain "convent")

 

Its basically excalibur with two other powers:

--2d6 HKA, AVLD "Magic Defenses", Does Body, OAF Broadsword, Unbreakable, Independent)

--Detect Lies, Range, Instant 20-

--+20 PRE, Only To Inspire, Rally, or Convince

 

Ring of the Padishah Djann (almost never used)

--Status: Member of the Royal House (Djann Realm)

--Spirit Contract, Padishah Djann 20-

--X-Dim Transport: Padishah Djann's Palace, And Back

 

A crystal ball that works the way the one in lord of the rings works (you can see through other ones linked to it - web cams for adventurers)

 

She doesn't carry any magical arms or armor with her (though she does have a mithril chain vest), and only has two permanent items that are regularly in play.

 

She does typically have a small assortment of elixirs, powders, and whatnot with her (largely because her consort it an arch-mage).

[Markdoc]

As to the idea that magic items are welded to fantasy characters, that happens in some books, with some characters: but in others, the exact opposite is true. In Jack Vance's stories, magic items are bought, sold, stolen or involuted and hidden under doorstops. Even in Tolkein, sure Gandalf gets to keep Glamdring, but Sting passes from hand to hand (Bilbo gives it to Frodo, Frodo is poisoned and Sam loots his body). That sounds like a Fantasy game to me Even the one ring passes from hand to hand - Gollum was upset when he lost it - imagine how pissed off he would have been if he had had to pay points for it!

The whole Silmarillion is driven by the stealing, losing, looting and loosing again of several powerful magic items.

 

You could argue that these items are plot devices, but that rather misses the point - in fantasy games, magic items are also plot devices.

 

The first GM's rule for magic items - one rule to bind them all, if you like - is that you should never give the players a magic item you don't want them to have.

 

That's it.

 

Once you have mastered this simple rule, all the rest about balancing points and so on becomes unneccessary.

 

To quote from a certain famous fantasy campaign: "There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil._ Bilbo was meant to find the ring, in which case you also were meant to have it." And who meant him to have it? The gamesmaster, of course.

 

I have, in my time, given players hideously powerful magic items: I have also on occasion had those items stolen away and watched the players run hither and yon like headless chickens in an attempt to retrieve them. That would not have happened if they players had had to pay for those items with their own points, in which case I would have denied myself and my players 3 months of enjoyable gaming.

 

So - no charging for magical items that are found. I don't charge the players points for the food they acquire in inns, either (life support, no need to eat, Focus (food), gestures (must eat food), 1 recoverable charge (recovers by finding new food), 1 real point).

 

Note: yes, there was certain amount of sarcasm in the last paragraph

 

As a last note, none of this point stuff negates the need to roleplay: a player who tried to convince me that had spent 15 XP and made a magic sword in his room over night would soon be introduced to the pointy pencil of pain. Chasing down magical ingredients, learning the necessary rituals and finally performing the ritual are all good gaming fodder.

 

cheers, Mark.

 

And may none of your players ever find an invisible, dancing, 2-handed vorpal sword!

[Talon]

Originally posted by Greatwyrm

Are these in FH and I missed them or have you developed a system of your own?

 

I believe they are mentioned as an idea in the current FH, and were similarly mentioned in the 4th Edition FH. I never wrote up a table of what components were worth what XP, because I didn't want to reduce it to grocery shopping; instead, I would either tell players what it would take to build a certain item, or I would give them rough estimates of how much power was in something they found.

[Rick]

They do mention compontents worth ep's in FH. Something like A low magic Item (eye of newt, tongue of frog) would be worth 1-3 points, a moderatly magical item (Some special steal, Dragon scales, minotaur testicle) would be worth 4-7 points and VERY MAGICAL items (Dragon's tear, unicorn blood, Bascalisc spline, mythril or a nail from the crufix) would be worth 8 and up.

 

It's basicly mix to the consistency you like. Those numbers are from memory and are probably really wrong.

[austenandrews]

Charging points for magic items? Do you charge points for the normal weapons they find, too? Why would one be different from the other?

 

I don't charge. My limiting factor is not giving the PCs more than I'm comfortable with (which is not always as easy as it might sound, granted, given the "racing for pink slips" nature of many fights).

 

-AA

[Killer Shrike]

I require all magic items to have either IND or Non Recoverable Charges. Either or, not both. Items on Non Recoverable Charges (reffered to as Ephemeral Items) dont cost character points, ever -- they are treated as (very expensive) equipment.

 

Independant items (reffered to as Permanent Items) cost character points to create or start with, but do not cost character points when acquired in game.

 

The guideline in place for Magic Items in my campaign are described in full here:

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/magicItemNotes.shtml

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Markdoc

As to the idea that magic items are welded to fantasy characters, that happens in some books, with some characters: but in others, the exact opposite is true. In Jack Vance's stories, magic items are bought, sold, stolen or involuted and hidden under doorstops. Even in Tolkein, sure Gandalf gets to keep Glamdring, but Sting passes from hand to hand (Bilbo gives it to Frodo, Frodo is poisoned and Sam loots his body). That sounds like a Fantasy game to me Even the one ring passes from hand to hand - Gollum was upset when he lost it - imagine how pissed off he would have been if he had had to pay points for it!

 

Gollum was an NPC, I thought we had established that NPCs don't have character point restrictions. So Gollum doesn't count.

 

I think we're getting off track here, NPCs don't follow PC point restrictions. I'm sure Mechanon didn't start at as a 250 pt. character in Champions Second Edition...

 

NPCs don't follow PC rules, for the most part. You give the NPC as many points as you want, period. PCs start out with a fixed amount of points, for the most part, and have to work up from there. So compared to NPCs, PCs are very constrained, that's why magic items costing anything are even an issue with PCs.

 

The whole Silmarillion is driven by the stealing, losing, looting and loosing again of several powerful magic items.

 

You could argue that these items are plot devices, but that rather misses the point - in fantasy games, magic items are also plot devices.

 

You again are putting NPCs in the same category as PCs, I would say - apples and oranges. Gollum (NPC), Sauron (NPC), Sauramon (NPC), Gandalf (NPC, Mentor): These characters have no point restrictions on them, PCs do. I wonder how many GMs think, "He's an NPC, I know I need to make him more powerful to fight a PC party with 50 experience points. But you know the rules are, he starts out with 350 experience points. Sorry Mechanon, that ego defense has to go."

 

Yes, Tom looted Frodos items from him, but then that was justified procurement. Frodo hardly had need of the items, and the items were basically useless from them on. Also, Tom needed them to rescue Frodo. Geesh I wonder if the GM would say: "Tom you have a psych. limitation: upstanding and moral person. Sorry, your 20 point psych. limit won't allow you to take Frodos items, he'll just have to die."

 

The first GM's rule for magic items - one rule to bind them all, if you like - is that you should never give the players a magic item you don't want them to have.

 

That's it.

 

First rule of GMing Magic Items: do the best design job you can do for magic items, making them balanced and of appropriate power levels - acccording to your perception. But even the best GMs make mistakes. Take a page for Wizards of the Coast, playtest, playtest, playtest. Even if you think that Wand of Cumulative Transformation wasn't too powerful, after having half the goblins on the continent turned into toads, it seemed a little excessive. Plus, there went the property values.

 

Also, as I say later. Doing some playtesting to establish what reasonable levels are for magic items, will work best, I think.

 

Once you have mastered this simple rule, all the rest about balancing points and so on becomes unneccessary.

 

To quote from a certain famous fantasy campaign: "There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the ring, in which case you also were meant to have it." And who meant him to have it? The gamemaster, of course.

 

Ah, I think were at the core of your belief system. The pleasure of the game is there for the Game Master, only. I disagree, it's there for both the Game Master and the players.

 

Rule #1 of fiction writing; Meet your readers expectations, if they want a happy ending, give them a happy ending. In short, give the reader a satisfying experience.

 

Rule #1 of fantasy roleplaying: Don't be a miser, be wise. Reward players when their roleplaying deserves reward, and don't reward them when they don't earn reward.

 

I have, in my time, given players hideously powerful magic items: I have also on occasion had those items stolen away and watched the players run hither and yon like headless chickens in an attempt to retrieve them.

 

And what if a researched standard was set, in which over one thousand play sessions- it was proved what point limits weren't too excessive? You would have been less likely to make that mistake, and your players wouldn't have felt let down. I hope you replaced that magic item with a more suitable one.

 

That would not have happened if they players had had to pay for those items with their own points, in which case I would have denied myself and my players 3 months of enjoyable gaming.

 

This paragraph makes no sense to me. We have room to disagree here, heck I haven't even decided one way or the other, Im just feeling things out. But my point is that a standard would make things more reasonable. Ok, if you don't want to follow the standard then ok. But, at least we could have a guideline.

[lemming]

Originally posted by austenandrews

I don't charge. My limiting factor is not giving the PCs more than I'm comfortable with (which is not always as easy as it might sound, granted, given the "racing for pink slips" nature of many fights).

I love that line "racing for pink slips".

 

My take on items:

If you pay CP, that item isn't going to be taken away in gameplay without a refund. Other items may come and go.

[Vanguard00]

I charge characters for any magic items they possess at the time of character creation. If/when that item is used/lost, they either lose the points (and the corresponding amount of disad points, or they become "bankable" points to be used just like XP. They cannot be used to acquire additional items.

 

I don't charge CPs for normal items, period.

 

Any items not on the person at time of creation will need to be RPed, either in the finding, the making, the buying, the stealing...whatever. They can keep those items indefinitely unless something occurs in-story to remove it (loss, use, theft, selling it, etc).

 

I keep a close eye on magic items so it (hopefully) doesn't get out of hand. Magic items tend to be rare, few and far between...at least those of any power. Potions are slightly more common, but costly (in material wealth).

[Killer Shrike]

RE: NPCs not beholden by the same rules as PCs:

 

That may be how you run the game Galadorn, but that doesnt mean its the only way to do it.

 

You are falsely assuming that because the starting point level for PCs is P points, the starting point level for ALL characters is P points and that therefore Villains listed at higher point levels are somehow outside the character creation rules because they have too many points -- and that by inference character creation rules dont apply to them. This is a false assumption.

 

PCs and Prominent NPCs have X Base points, up to Y max Disad points and Z total points. Z -(X+Y) = Experience Points.

 

"Normals" and weaker antagonists may have fewer Base Points, or take fewer Disads or both, resulting in lower point characters. But they too still have a certain # of Base Points, a certain number of Max points from Disads and the remainder is Experience.

 

Whether the character has a lot of Experience Points or 0 Experience Point (starting PCs) is a matter of preference for the GM, and to some extent dictated by the gamism need to challenge the party sufficiently for a fun encounter but not so much they are wiped out and the game ends. Nevertheless, the NPCs should still be built by the same guidelines as the players, even if they have access to higher point caps or powers disallowed to players due to campaign implications.

 

Regardless, things which are common between characters, whether they be PCs or NPCs should be consistent IMO to avoid anomolous occurances, unfair situations, and to maintain conceptual consistency for the campaign.

 

In this case if you have a means to power only available to the villains (a freebie on Magic Items), or treat some basic element of the game such as the acquisition of Magic Items which works differently for NPCs than it does for PCs, you are instrinsically stating that PCs are somehow "special cases" and the universe treats them differently just because they are PCs. This breaks the 4th wall immediately, and seriously detracts from the versimilitude of a setting.

 

RE: Arguing about it:

However, if thats how you choose to do things, so be it. Youve commented thusly, we are informed, your input is noted; -- thanx!

 

But arguing back and forth with another poster to convince them that they are wrong is pointless. Thats how they do it, and unless there is some major misunderstanding of the rules going on that needs to be clarified (and in this case there isnt), then why get confrontational over it? Thats one of the best parts of the HERO System; each GM is encouraged to do things the way they want to do them.

 

A dialogue is one thing to discuss the relative pros & cons of an approach, but just repeatedly stating that the other parties way of doing things is wrong is non productive.

 

IMO, YMMV, etc

 

Thanx!

 

 

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

RE: NPCs not beholden by the same rules as PCs:

 

That may be how you run the game Galadorn, but that doesnt mean it's the only way to do it.

 

You are falsely assuming that because the starting point level for PCs is X points, the starting point level for ALL characters is X points. This is a false assumption.

 

PCs and Prominent NPCs have X Base points, up to Y max Disad points and Z total points. Z -(X+Y) = Experience Points.

 

Whether the character has a lot of Experience Points or 0 Experience Point (starting PCs) is a matter of preference for the GM, and to some extent dictated by the gamism need to challenge the party sufficiently for a fun encounter but not so much they are wiped out and the game ends.

 

First of all, I think a reasonable assumption is to start with standard Hero Game rules. If you don't want to follow standard Hero Game rules, my comments are not for you.

 

Regardless, things which are common between characters, whether they be PCs or NPCs should be consistent to avoid anomolous occurances, unfair situations, and conceptual consistency for the campaign.

 

If you have a means to power only available to the villains, or treat some basic element of the game such as the acquisition of Magic Items which works differently for NPCs than it does for PCs, you are instrinsically stating that PCs are somehow "special cases" and the universe treats them differently just because they are PCs. This breaks the 4th wall immediately, and seriously detracts from the versimilitude of a setting.

 

Enough theory and philosophy, NPCs aren't made, in practice, following the same rules that PCs do. They start with far more character points then the PCs, typically - period, case closed.

 

However, if thats how you choose to do things, so be it. Youve commented thusly, we are informed, your input is noted; -- thanx!

 

But arguing with another poster to convince them that they are wrong is pointless.

 

I guess we should throw persuasive language right out of the english language - thanks. Secondly, you just argued with me.

 

Thats how they do it, and unless there is some major misunderstanding of the rules going on that needs to be clarified (and in this case there isnt), then why get confrontational over it? Thats one of the best parts of the HERO System; each GM is encouraged to do things the way they want to do them.

 

Thanx!

 

I made it quite clear, and I guess that you didn't read my post throughly, that I myself hadn't decided which way to go. But then the reading ability of the American people is not what is once was. Second, if you don't like my posts, you can just ignore them.

 

Third, you yourself engaged in arguing with me about my tactics. I thought you said arguing with others is not the way to go? Hmmmmmmmm.

 

Fourthly, my comments where rhetorical.

[Monolith]

I have only played in a few Fantasy Hero sessions, and have never run one, but if I were going to make a campaign I would not make players pay XP for items they find. As the GM I control what the players can and cannot find. It should not be a random thing. It is not as though I would be running a random module and giving out Stormbringer just because the module says it is hidden in a chest on level 3. As the GM I decide what I want the players to have, and I must understand the ramification of giving them the item and how it might affect the campaign.

 

The GM should control the number of magic items in the same fashion that he controls the XP. If a GM wants the characters to advance quickly he gives them a lot of experience; if he wants them to advance slowly he gives them few experience. It should not come as a shock to a GM that his players are exceptionally powerful, with dozens of followers and abilities, if he gives out 10 XP every game session. If some GM's feel that they must "balance" the magic items with XP spent, then those GM's should just consider the magic items to be bonus experience points, and have the players pay for the items and then balance the cost with the bonus XP.

 

If I were running a FH campaign I would also consider the cost of characters purchasing magic items at creation. For example, if someone wanted a +3 OCV, 2d6 magic broad sword at start up, I would only have the character pay the difference in cost between the magic broad sword and a regular broad sword. So if the magic sword costs 15 point and the normal sword costs 7 points I would only make the player pay the extra 8 points at character creation. I see no reason to make players pay for something that everyone else can get for free. But that is just me.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Vanguard00

I charge characters for any magic items they possess at the time of character creation. If/when that item is used/lost, they either lose the points (and the corresponding amount of disad points, or they become "bankable" points to be used just like XP. They cannot be used to acquire additional items.)

 

I would never pay character points for any magic item, as a Player, I just use replaceable foci. I've learned this over the many years I've played Hero.

 

I don't charge CPs for normal items, period.

 

I wouldn't pay a single point for a magic item, but then, that's my own preference. I wouldn't play in a game in which those experience points, I hard earned through roleplaying, where taken away. I don't like Indian-giver GMs.

 

Any items not on the person at time of creation will need to be RPed, either in the finding, the making, the buying, the stealing...whatever. They can keep those items indefinitely unless something occurs in-story to remove it (loss, use, theft, selling it, etc).

 

Then I would spend every session to reaqcuire that magic item, spending experience points on spells, leaving the party look for it, until the GM backed down, or killed my character.

 

Problem is, some people don't seem to have a respect for the effort people put into roleplaying a character. I spend hours designing my characters, a GM who killed my character off willy-nilly, or stole his magic items willy-nilly, would find me no longer at his table.

 

I keep a close eye on magic items so it (hopefully) doesn't get out of hand. Magic items tend to be rare, few and far between...at least those of any power. Potions are slightly more common, but costly (in material wealth).

 

I like potions as well, easy magic to use and the GM doesn't have to worry about it for very long. LOL.

[Galadorn]

I think the problem is this:

 

1. Just saying that GMS should "be of good judgement" doesn't mean anything. How many of us have put an item, or allowed a power, in a campaign that just ruined a campaign for the short term. I would say, all GMs.

 

2. I am just saying, playtesting for a standard, would help to alleviate or reduce those mistakes. This is just research, folks, used everyday in marketing and other disciplines.

 

3. This is only a guideline, if you don't like the guideline, then don't use it. If I were to put my counselors hat on, I would say some people have a problem with standards and boundaries, and need some addictions treatment, but then I'm not being a counselor today. LOL