Why is it so slow in here?

[Ryhope Wood]

As for magic, I like the idea of requiring a Skill roll, but hate the requirement to impose a penalty based on Active Points. It's ridiculously crippling for high Active Point spells, it leads to absurdly inflated rolls or to including a "+20 Skills Levels only to counter Active Point Penalty" construct, and it annoys players to have to remember a different penalty to apply for every single spell. I DO have a solution.

 

I've started requiring all magic to draw from a "Mana Pool" (END Reserve) and put the Requires a Roll Limitation on THAT. It still has the effect of requiring a roll for every spell, but if the penalty is based on the Active Points of the END being used I feel we can safely ignore the penalty altogether but still be good under Rules as Written.

 

I like the idea.  I built a skills only magic system to keep it simple for my players.  They purchased spells as skills with a penalty for more powerful spells based on active points totals.  In order to avoid ridiculous penalties I used a non-linear progression for the relationship between AP and penalty.

 

On the wider topic, I think it would be a very good idea to build pre-gens.  While I think HERO does have a wealth of options for magic-users, it is rarely put together as a complete package.  Newbies are therefore left wondering what it is their magic-user looks like in stats terms - eg. how much Mana Pool do I need to function properly?  How many points to put into my framework?  The pre-gens will be highly useful in solving this.

[Lucius]

 However I don't think one can avoid Frameworks if you want mages in the game with huge lists of spells to choose from.  You are going to either need to go Variable Power Pool, or Multipower.  That's really the only way that a huge library of spells is available without doing something clunky like an automatic -2 limitation discount for free like Turakian age.

 

We don't "want mages in the game with huge lists of spells to choose from" in the BASIC set. That comes later. Perhaps as a foreshadowing we can impose a limit of "No more than INT/5 Spells active at one time"(possibly as part of a generic "Spell" Limitation on all spells) and then when they hit the Advanced rules it's "Hey, I can have a dozen spells up at once if they're all operating at low power or if I invest a ton of points in the Multipower."

 

With Skill Rolls (Power Rolls), I think it's usually best that the Player define several "Powers" that work off of the same skill.  For example, a "Summoning" Skill to represent the Character's ability to cast different Summoning Spells (All of which Require a Skill Roll: Summoning), or a "Psi" Skill for Psionic Powers.  I've had players who wanted to define every power as having a separate Skills, and while this works...it get's frustrating for the player after a while when they have 5 or 6 different "Power" skills.

 

As for the Active Point penalty.  Other than ignoring it (Which is expressly forbidden per the Rules...), we could go with a -1 per 20 active points, but that reduces the Limitation to -1/4.

 

As for using a "Mana Pool" -- it shifts where the roll is at.  Not that it's a bad thing.  It can change the "flavor" of the magic -- which is good.  Perhaps a Requires a Skill Roll (Mana Convayence) at -1 per X END (??).  Then again...the same problem remains.

 

~ N

Uh, no, the same problem does not remain. The roll would be based on the Active Points of the END used and even if you used the standard -1 per 10 Active Points, a spell has to consume 20 pts of END to get any penalty.

 

I also have no idea why you'd want to call the Skill "Mana Conveyance" either, I think just calling it "Magic Skill" will work, or something like "Thaumaturgy" or "Spellcraft" if we want to get fancy. For what we're trying to do I think it's best to just have ONE Skill for magic in general.

That would be simpler than setting up several different "schools" or varieties of magic.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Power Skill: Palindromedary Powers

[Nadrakas]

Uh, no, the same problem does not remain. The roll would be based on the Active Points of the END used and even if you used the standard -1 per 10 Active Points, a spell has to consume 20 pts of END to get any penalty.

 

That is what I meant: A penalty to the skill roll, whether it is derived from the Active Point Cost or the Active Points of the END -- thus my 1 per X END (??).

 

Call it "Similar" then.

 

 

I also have no idea why you'd want to call the Skill "Mana Conveyance" either, I think just calling it "Magic Skill" will work, or something like "Thaumaturgy" or "Spellcraft" if we want to get fancy. For what we're trying to do I think it's best to just have ONE Skill for magic in general.

That would be simpler than setting up several different "schools" or varieties of magic.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Power Skill: Palindromedary Powers

"Mana Conveyance" -- throwback to Rolemasters "Channeling." Sorry about that.  You can call it "Will & The Way" if you want, it's all cool.

 

Thing is...this would be a big change from the "established" FH setting.  If this (or any other method) is the way we want to go, then we need to work it out -- but then we'll be moving away from the "established" setting, and making our own.  I'm good with that...but let's make that decision now and work out the specifics.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Power Skill: Palindromedary Powers

What does PS: Palindromery Powers do exactly?

 

~ N

[Vondy]

I like the idea.  I built a skills only magic system to keep it simple for my players.  They purchased spells as skills with a penalty for more powerful spells based on active points totals.  In order to avoid ridiculous penalties I used a non-linear progression for the relationship between AP and penalty.

 

I've long had "issues" with the application of linear active point penalties, meaning the usual -1 per 5 AP, to a bell-curve based skill rolls. It introduces a disparity of modifier ranges into the skill system, leads to inflated skill rolls beyond what the system itself proposes, and ultimately breaks the curve. I think, if one is going to use an AP based penalty it should be -1 per 20AP. Most really powerful spells would then have a negative penalty of -4 to -6, which still breaks the normative +4/-4 threshold for penalties and bonuses -- but is close enough to remain reasonable and not lead to dissonant character builds. Even then, if you look at the insanely expensive signature spells for Wizardry in the Grimoire, they don't require a skill roll. Its just listed as N/A. A mage -- especially an arch-mage -- should not need a skill roll greater than what the system itself uses as a default as "perhaps the greatest in history" [20-] to have a reasonable hope of succeeding with their marquee arcana. A character with a skill roll of 14-20 should be considered to possess a rare level of skill, not be definitively hopeless and spitting into the wind when they do what it is they are supposed to do best.

[Tasha]

I would recommend Requiring a Magic Skill for doing weird things with the spells (ie how the Power Skill is supposed to be used for). All spells will have an activation roll that is equal to the Magic Skill roll.  That way Spells will have the same roll no matter how expensive they are to purchase. I would also have a VPP for the spells and a list of spells that can be plugged into the VPP. I like the idea of having all spells using the endurance from the Caster's End Reserve. That shows the strength of Hero, and gives a slight feel of the D&D spell system.

 

Limits:
OAF (Casting Focus) AKA Wand, Staff, Holy Symbol or even some other kind of materials)

Incantations

Gestures

Activation Roll 13- (14- for easy spells)

[BlueCloud2k2]

Tasha makes a good point. If players use the easy-peasey build method for a fireball or whatever, he wouldn't know to scale the skill roll needed.

 

Some thoughts on spells:

OAF: Wand/Staff for wizards, holy symbol for priests -1

Gestures (-1/4)

Incantation (-1/4)

Activation Roll 13- (okay... 6e has screwed with the activation roll... what the heck is a 13- worth? a +0? is that right?)

 

 

Basic Fireball Spell: +1d6 killing damage filling an 8 meter radius for 9 points (uses 2 END or Magic Points or whatever per d6).

Basic Lightning Bolt Spell: +1d6 killing damage in a 32 meter line for 9 points (uses 2 END or MP per d6)

Basic Healing Spell: +1d6 healing for 4 character points (Uses 1 END/MP per d6)

[IndianaJoe3]

Activation Roll 13- (okay... 6e has screwed with the activation roll... what the heck is a 13- worth? a +0? is that right?)

 

That is correct. However, other options can modify the Limitation as well. Requiring the roll be made every Phase would be an additional -1/2, for example.

[Vondy]

I would recommend Requiring a Magic Skill for doing weird things with the spells (ie how the Power Skill is supposed to be used for). All spells will have an activation roll that is equal to the Magic Skill roll.  That way Spells will have the same roll no matter how expensive they are to purchase. I would also have a VPP for the spells and a list of spells that can be plugged into the VPP. I like the idea of having all spells using the endurance from the Caster's End Reserve. That shows the strength of Hero, and gives a slight feel of the D&D spell system.

 

Limits:

OAF (Casting Focus) AKA Wand, Staff, Holy Symbol or even some other kind of materials)

Incantations

Gestures

Activation Roll 13- (14- for easy spells)

 

This is a reasonable compromise, and one I'll likely use in future. I'll probably still apply -1 for 15AP or 20AP instead of per 5AP when a roll is required, however.

[Lucius]

That is what I meant: A penalty to the skill roll, whether it is derived from the Active Point Cost or the Active Points of the END -- thus my 1 per X END (??).

 

Call it "Similar" then.

 

I guess I'm having a problem understanding what you're saying then. If the Skill Roll Limitation is on the END Reserve, and the penalty kicks in at 20 pts of END, then unless the spell has an Increased END Cost, the spell doesn't take a penalty until it's at 100 Active Points - and that's if we're rounding up. With a liberal interpretation, spells take no Skill Roll penalty until 200 Active Points (again, still assuming they don't have Increased END Cost) and if we went with a Roll at -1/20 Active Points on the END Reserve, the spells can get up to 400 Active Points.

 

 

 

Thing is...this would be a big change from the "established" FH setting.   

~ N

? There's an "established" Fantasy Hero setting?? Are you talking about Turakian Age or what?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Antidisestablishmentarionist palindromedary

[BlueCloud2k2]

Had some thoughts on Campaign Setting:

 

The Kingdom of Amlen is recovering from a civil war a little over a decade ago caused when the High-King's two sons fought over the succession. Tamrar believed he should be the next High King because he was the eldest, while Delrar believed he should be because he was a paladin and his brother was not (Amlen's laws stated the High-King had to be a Paladin in good standing).

 

Tamrar (who had the backing of the barons who were holdovers from the Vampiric Empire of Requillar and wanted to see the Order of Amlen struck down) tried to seize the throne through force of arms.

 

Delrar (who had the backing of everyone else) mangaged to win out by offering certain lands to the Elven and Dwarven nations in exchange for their assistance. Not that those promises were enough to keep the Dwarves from supplying weapons to certain members of Tamrar's cohort. Which has caused a lot of bitterness towards them.

 

Feedback? I will admit a fare bit of that was inspired by Skyrim

[Lord Liaden]

I received a reply from Jason Walters regarding licensing the use of Hero Games's official settings to create adventure modules and the like.

 

 

Dear Jason, A point came up during discussion on this forum thread regarding how fans could provide support to the Fantasy Hero line, specifically Hero's official settings, which would benefit from clarification. Could licensed projects under the Hero System Contracts terms also include adventure modules and the like set in the Turakian/Valdorian etc. worlds? Subject to your approval, of course. I ask because it's not immediately obvious whether Chasing A Golden Buck, which is a Valdorian Age adventure, was licensed under a different exceptional arrangement. Thanks for listening, LL

 

 

At this point in time the rights to the Turakian/Valdorian Ages are jointly held by Steve Long and Hero Games, depending on the application. I would have no problem issuing you a free licence to create for commercial purposes a module for either setting, but it would be best to check with Steve first.

[Nadrakas]

 

I guess I'm having a problem understanding what you're saying then. If the Skill Roll Limitation is on the END Reserve, and the penalty kicks in at 20 pts of END, then unless the spell has an Increased END Cost, the spell doesn't take a penalty until it's at 100 Active Points - and that's if we're rounding up. With a liberal interpretation, spells take no Skill Roll penalty until 200 Active Points (again, still assuming they don't have Increased END Cost) and if we went with a Roll at -1/20 Active Points on the END Reserve, the spells can get up to 400 Active Points.

 

It could go either way.

1. Active Points of the END Reserve used (Per the standard rules: -1 per 10 Active Points;  END Reserve Cost: 1 CP per 4 END/2 CP per 3 REC).
2. -1 per "X" END Used (Based off how difficult you want to make it).  You could choose to make the "X" 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or even more...depends upon how difficult you want to make the Power (Spell) Roll.  Is it -1 per 1 END used ?  -1 per 4 END used? or more?  Is it Hard or much easier?

 

Either way is fine.  Depending upon how you do it, the penalty may be worse or better.  Probably simpler to go with Number 1.

 

That being said, it was just a "Thought" -- which is what we are doing here...putting out ideas.  Not stepping on anyone's toes, just putting forth thoughts.

 

Personally, I don't like the Penalty being based off of the Active Points -- it drives up "Power" Rolls...which is counter-intuitive, especially in FH Games.  Don't know exactly how to "fix it."

 

 

 

 ? There's an "established" Fantasy Hero setting?? Are you talking about Turakian Age or what?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Antidisestablishmentarionist palindromedary

That's what I meant -- as far as there is any "Official" setting anyway.

 

Peace.

 

 

~ N

[Tasha]

The Skill roll on the End Reserve just reeks of Cheezyness. We need to keep this whole thing simple. No weird tricks, no fudging the rules.

[Nadrakas]

I received a reply from Jason Walters regarding licensing the use of Hero Games's official settings to create adventure modules and the like.

 

 

At this point in time the rights to the Turakian/Valdorian Ages are jointly held by Steve Long and Hero Games, depending on the application. I would have no problem issuing you a free licence to create for commercial purposes a module for either setting, but it would be best to check with Steve first.

 

 

With Initial approval required from both Steve Long and Hero Games, then anything that we did as "Plug-Ins" would also require approval.  Any adventures, Characters, Setting Expansions.

 

 

~ N

[Lucius]

Personally, I don't like the Penalty being based off of the Active Points -- it drives up "Power" Rolls...which is counter-intuitive, especially in FH Games.  Don't know exactly how to "fix it."

 

 

Peace.

 

 

~ N

I can think of six ways to fix it.

 

1. The way I proposed. Linking the Skill Roll Limitation to the END Reserve rather than to individual spells effectively eliminates the penalty especially if you go for the -1/20 pts option. A spell will have to be utterly, ridiculously huge to trigger a penalty. I like this idea, obviously.

 

2. Ignore the penalty. Every spell requires a roll on whatever the character's Skill is. There is something to be said for this but I have a slight aversion to just out and out ignoring the Rules as Written and I am sure some others are even more averse. But it's probably the simplest possible solution.

 

3. Use flat Activation rolls instead of Skill rolls. This allows, for example, a mage to be better at one spell (bought with 14 Activation) than another (bought with 11 Activation) but then, that gets back into the "different rolls for different spells" problem - except of course that if a player has a problem with it they can just buy all spells at the same roll, or they can choose to be clumsy with some simple spell but gifted with a more powerful spell.

 

4. No Rolls Required. How often do you see a spell cast in a fantasy story just fizzle, anyway?

 

5. Create a Custom Power, maybe called "Magic." Base Cost high enough that there's a cost difference for every possible Activation Roll one could choose for it. Say that it can only be bought with an Activation Roll. Require every spell to be Linked to it (this probably is only a -1/4 Limitation for most spells, since the spells will be larger.) The Activation Roll becomes, in effect, the "Skill Roll" for the spells. I can't think of a reason offhand to use this option but I include it since it did occur to me and someone else may see a benefit I miss.

 

6. Require every spell to take Side Effects: Unluck. One level of unluck means the spell happens but something inconvenient or hindering happens with it (example: fireball goes off, but blast radius bigger than normal, allies are caught in it and take damage.) Two levels is spell failure. Three levels is spell reversal or similar catastrophe (example: fireball catches ONLY the spellcaster in blast.) The drawback is that it calls for frequent judgment calls from the person running the game as to just what happens. Or we could say that any unluck, no matter how much or how little, is simply spell failure.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

7. A palindromedary. uh, wait a minute....

[Lord Liaden]

With Initial approval required from both Steve Long and Hero Games, then anything that we did as "Plug-Ins" would also require approval.  Any adventures, Characters, Setting Expansions.

 

 

~ N

 

You perceive that as problematic?

[BlueCloud2k2]

It could be hindering at best, and make it impossible to accomplish anything at worse.

 

Is Turakian Age in 5e or 6e? If we were to do anything for TA, wouldn't it need to be updated to 6e?

[Tasha]

It could be hindering at best, and make it impossible to accomplish anything at worse.

 

Is Turakian Age in 5e or 6e? If we were to do anything for TA, wouldn't it need to be updated to 6e?

Not necessarily. If we generate enough sales though Adventures and Plugins then perhaps Hero will see that TA will be a money maker and seek an update to 6e

[Nadrakas]

I can think of six ways to fix it.

 

 

4. No Rolls Required. How often do you see a spell cast in a fantasy story just fizzle, anyway?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

Number 4.  Typically the only Failures are either from Apprentices learning magic, when a mage is in a "Wild Zone," when two powerful spells counteract each other and things go wonkie, when the mage is drunk or when the plot says so.

 

~ N

[Nadrakas]

You perceive that as problematic?

No, not in and of itself.

 

Hero Games has said it's ok.

 

Mr Long has to sign off on this.

 

Then we have to come up with the products that we want & like (Adventures, NPCs, Monsters, Setting Expansions, etc) -- coordinating everything back and forth between ourselves -- and send it to Hero Games for approval per the below (And that's for Everything using the Hero System...).

 

(NOTE: This is an excerpt from the Hero System Contracts, and applies to everything that a third party does using the Hero System...)

 

C. DOJ’s Right Of Approval: DOJ shall have the right to inspect and approve any and all of the NAME WORKS prior to publication. When LICENSEE has a NAME WORKS product in final draft form suitable for layout, it shall submit that manuscript to DOJ via e-mail to License@herogames.com. HERO System General Manager Jason Walter shall review the manuscript within Sixty (60) Days of the date of receipt of the manuscript. This review shall include, but not be limited to, assuring compliance with the Writer’s Guidelines (per Paragraph IV.B, above) and assuring that the material presented, and manner of presentation, is not likely to be harmful to DOJ and its properties.

1. Approval Or Rejection Of Manuscript: DOJ shall indicate its approval or rejection of the manuscript, in whole or in part, within the Sixty (60) Days specified above. If it does not communicate approval or rejection of the manuscript within that time, the manuscript shall be deemed approved. If DOJ indicates rejection of the manuscript, or any part of that manuscript, it shall specify the reasons for the rejection as precisely as possible, so that LICENSEE may make appropriate additions, changes, corrections, and deletions.

 

2. Revised Manuscript: LICENSEE shall deliver to DOJ a revised manuscript, incorporating the additions, changes, corrections, and deletions requested by DOJ, within Sixty (60) Days of receipt of the notice of rejection. DOJ shall once again review the manuscript, pursuant to Paragraph V.C.1 above, and approve or reject it within Sixty (60) Days of its receipt of the revised anuscript. This process of review of a manuscript by DOJ and re-submission of the manuscript to LICENSEE for revisions as specified above shall continue as many times asnecessary until DOJ deems the manuscript acceptable, provided the Parties agree

to specific dates for delivery and re-submission.

3. Requirement Of Good Faith: DOJ shall conduct approval reviews in good faith, and not unreasonably withhold approval of a manuscript.

 

 

At some stage (Before, during or after Hero Games approves the Manuscript), coordination has to be accomplished with Mr Long, abiding by what he says about the Setting, including any changes (Assuming that he signs off on the concept of adding to the Setting at all).

 

I'm good with this, but that's an extra layer to be adding (Onions & Ogres anyone ).  It's both easier and harder to go with an established Setting.  Easier from the standpoint that the Sandbox already exists and we can build upon it.  Harder in that, paradoxically, it does exist and we have to get approval from Mr Long for anything and everything we do.  Again, no matter what we do, because we are doing this in the Hero System, we have to submit everything to Hero Games...just if we decide to go with Turakian/Valdorian Ages there will be even more coordination.

 

I'm not saying "No." Not by a long shot.  I think it would be a great way to get people attracted to the Hero System.  However, right now - in Hero 6e - the "Official World" is in "Limbo." The Turakian/Valdorian Ages were written up for Hero 5e (Not sure if there is a 6e version of either on the horizon, and if so, when).  They could be converted to 6e, but again, everything would have to be submitted for approval, per the above.

 

I think that we need to decide if we want to go with the "Established" Hero System Setting(s) -- Turakian/Valdorian Ages (I will assume, for the sake of argument, that we are going to go with Fantasy Hero), or if we want to do an entirely new and unique setting.  This should be decided early on.

 

I'm fine with using the established setting or if we strike out on our own.  However, I really think we should decide that sooner, rather than later.  Having to go back and rework things can be a pain.

 

Peace.

 

 

~ N

 

Fixed Hero System vs Hero Games...for clarification. Thanks Tasha

Edited December 24, 2013 by Nadrakas

[Tasha]

BTW just a point of being super picky. The company is HERO games. We talk about Hero as a system and a company. There is no plural to that name. There is the Possessive Hero's, but other than it's just Hero Games and the Hero System. We talked to Hero.

[Nadrakas]

BTW just a point of being super picky. The company is HERO games. We talk about Hero as a system and a company. There is no plural to that name. There is the Possessive Hero's, but other than it's just Hero Games and the Hero System. We talked to Hero.

Thanks for the "smack" Tasha.  Fixed the above.

 

"Sigh"

 

Hero Games

Hero System

 

Right...

 

 

~ N

[Tasha]

Thanks for the "smack" Tasha.  Fixed the above.

 

"Sigh"

 

Hero Games

Hero System

 

Right...

 

 

~ N

Sorry, I can be a bit persnickety at times.

[Nadrakas]

Sorry, I can be a bit persnickety at times.

'Tis ok.  It's all in fun...nobody got hurt...no eyes poked out.

 

Besides...I'm thick skinned (Especially after 25-years in the military...)

 

And you brought up a good point...Consistency.  In Language, In Format, In...everything.  We'll need a "Bible" of some sort (even a small one...)

 

Thanks again.

 

 

~ N

[Lord Liaden]

 

And you brought up a good point...Consistency.  In Language, In Format, In...everything.  We'll need a "Bible" of some sort (even a small one...)

 

 

That's actually something I've wondered about. The PDF of the Hero Games Writers Guidelines is still on the website, and is linked to on the webpage introducing licensing policies; but it's the one from 2003, written with Fifth Edition in mind. AFAIK nobody from the company has talked about updating them.

 

I don't think that would be insurmountable, though, assuming that the specifications for layout and formatting are generally the standard which Hero wants to follow (we can ask Jason about that). A number of names of Powers, Modifiers, and the like have changed, but the Guidelines for what goes where in which order still seem applicable. One can always refer to published Sixth Edition books for precedents on how to write entries for things that have changed between editions.