Activate Point Limit in Fantasy

[Cantriped]

Although you should also bear in mind that the Battle Axe, Lance, Spear, and Great Sword builds listed in CC are all above your campaign's Active Point limit out the gate. I wouldn't consider Extra DCs from maneuvers or other sources a problem in regard to an Active Point Limits, because you can use maneuvers with spells too unless you force the players to put that god-awful "Spell" -1/2 modifier on their magic. However even if magical martial arts are unavailable in the campaign, there is nothing saying that Wizards can't apply 3-point Combat Skill Levels to the OCV or DCs of a small group of Attack Spells just like the Fighter can to Blades.

 

In terms of balancing the Fighters vs. the Wizards, and assuming it is a Heroic Campaign with "Free" Equipment; making sure both have an equal opportunity to do damage if they choose to focus on that is a good start. Secondarily, you could also consider what items society might have developed specifically for Wizards, that you can give to your player Wizards in order to balance the "free character points" the Fighter receives from their equipment. For a DnD-esk world some examples include an "Eternal Wand of Magic Missiles" which requires the caster actually know Magic Missile (3-5 Charges per day as Magic Missile if the casting system is strict), or a "Ring of Magic Missile Control" which grants two to six 3-point CSLs for Magic Missiles.

[Nolgroth]

I think Campaign Guidelines do have a purpose. At the beginning of a campaign, Guidelines can establish benchmarks. Once the game has begun, then it should be more organic in regards to how characters progress. This is especially true of newer players that need to ease into the character creation system. Once everybody is comfortable with how the system works, then Campaign Guidelines take a backseat to just playing the game.

 

I personally, even with a group of experienced Hero players, always start out a campaign with Guidelines. As I've seen suggested, I actually make the published maximums about 75-80% of what I want the actual maximums to be. The resulting difference gives me the room to customize a specific character to what the player envisions for him. The rest of the characters usually top off around that "upper middle" range. There is a "balance versus organic" trade-off at first. Eventually though, the players fall into the role that they want and it starts to become more organic. For me, that works out very well as I don't have to stress out over whether the characters are balanced versus each other or the NPC/monsters I throw at them.

 

Really though, learning how modifiers affect the Bell Curve and how a point of Defense or DC affects how much damage is done becomes far more important. All the balanced character creation in the world will not make up for a +4 OCV sword with +2 DC to damage. That can really skew a combat, especially at the lower point ranges that I prefer to play in. As you play more, those kinds of things should become more intuitive to eyeball.

 

I would also suggest you look really closely at the Optional Combat effects and even some of the default ones. I had to remove Stunning from one campaign because every combat would look something like; "Balgor is stunned, Balgor recovers from being stunned, Balgor is stunned, Balgor recovers from being stunned." While technically faithful to the rules, it was NOT fun. Not for me nor for the players (because it happened to every single one of them multiple times). My solution was to remove it. The fun factor went way up. The frustration factor disappeared.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Keep the damage at the lower end of the spectrum (below 6DC) and using hit locations, characters shouldnt be stunned too often. there will be lots of arm and leg hits (x2 stun multiplier) and plenty of chest hits (x3 stun multiplier) but head hits (x5) should be fairly rare. its in the best interest of anyone who is a front line fighter to buy up their natural defenses and wear the heaviest combat armor they can move freely in. that should be at least chain mail (defense 6) and with a pd of 8 its kinda hard to stun that guy.

[mhd]

So people shouldn't be able to buy up either penalty skill levels nor use combat skill levels for damage nor buy weapon master or similar effects? Then what would fighters spend their points on? Just a dogged defense?

 

Isn't that what Americans complain about soccer all the time?

[NuSoardGraphite]

So people shouldn't be able to buy up either penalty skill levels nor use combat skill levels for damage nor buy weapon master or similar effects? Then what would fighters spend their points on? Just a dogged defense?

 

Isn't that what Americans complain about soccer all the time?

I was talking about the NPC's, not the PCs.  I allow the PCs to buy all kinds of stuff to make them better at fighting.  They are the stars of the show.  Whenever they are facing off against thugs and ruffians, those guys probably won't ever do much more than 1D6+1k damage, so frequent Stunning shouldn't be a problem and the stars of the show will be allowed to shine.  Only when facing off against important NPCs will they be in real danger.

[mhd]

Okay, sorry, I kinda missed the transition towards NPCs. Coupled with the fact that I'm more a "equal opportunity" guy, where fighting NPCs tend to be rather good at their stuff (i.e. better than non-fightey PCs), at least for most campaigns. That means that they're fine against peasants-turned-robbers (who also have a sodden morale), but I assume that e.g. tribal warriors pretty much know what they're doing. Which includes your average "humanoid" fantasy trope fodder (orcs, lizardmen etc.). Then again, I also prefer individual fights to mowing down mooks. (MERP was a revelation to me )

 

Damage can get quite decent easily. With proper tactics, enemies that outnumber you can find ample opportunity to employ haymakers or head shots. With a base of 1 1/2 d6, even "unnamed" NPCs can become quite dangerous.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Okay, sorry, I kinda missed the transition towards NPCs. Coupled with the fact that I'm more a "equal opportunity" guy, where fighting NPCs tend to be rather good at their stuff (i.e. better than non-fightey PCs), at least for most campaigns. That means that they're fine against peasants-turned-robbers (who also have a sodden morale), but I assume that e.g. tribal warriors pretty much know what they're doing. Which includes your average "humanoid" fantasy trope fodder (orcs, lizardmen etc.). Then again, I also prefer individual fights to mowing down mooks. (MERP was a revelation to me )

 

Damage can get quite decent easily. With proper tactics, enemies that outnumber you can find ample opportunity to employ haymakers or head shots. With a base of 1 1/2 d6, even "unnamed" NPCs can become quite dangerous.

Totally depends on the situation.  If the PC's are going up against fighters who live in a warrior-culture then yes, they'll be a bit more dangerous than the average.  They'll probably have a couple of skill levels, make more use of tactics and maneuvers than your average ruffian.  Chances are pretty good I'm still not going to try and overwhelm the PC's because this game system can be very very deadly when all the optional damage rules are in use (which I do use) and its incredibly easy to accidentally kill a PC in this game.  

[mhd]

I generally try to view tactics from a in-game perspective, i.e. not trying to achieve a certain "difficulty level", but try to play them out like they could happen. All within my limited possibilities, though, as I'm not really familiar with group tactics myself, don't know jack how lizardmen tribal warriors would fight and generally suck at strategy/tactics games (Let's not talk about the Nine Men's Morris games I've lost to the developmentally challenged).

 

Within the HERO framework, I'd actually say that thugs would be more prone to using tactics than some tribal culture. Mostly dirty ones, plus ganging up, whereas in some situation a tribal warrior might insist more on individual combat to increase their rep.

 

Anyway, one thing where "believable tactics" and "not going for a TPK" coincide is one set of often maligned maneuvers: Grabs. Usually not immediately deadly, but a good setup for other attacks, preferably from other people. But still gives the defender -- and especially other party members -- time to intervene. Haven't yet found a set of grapple rules that was okay, but HERO's are workable

[Vondy]

I am running a fantasy game with a group who has never played Hero System before. I was explaining to them how in Fantasy Hero, the power levels for characters is less then the power level for characters in Champions. I had decided to start them off with 40 Activate Point Limit, but then some of the players pointed out that using a 2-Handed weapon with Haymaker and a few DC skill levels, you can break the 40AP Limit.

 

How do you address power level limits in FH? Do you just keep mages and clerics to the 40pt AP limit and let the warriors go bananas with their 4d6 HKAs?

AP limits can be a bit misleading. They work relatively well for straightforward attack and defense powers without unusual modifiers, but there are things that will jack up the costs of some powers that don't actually unbalance the game. An additional issue is that some comparatively "cheap" powers are highly effective outside of combat (like tunneling) and some effects are extremely expensive to model even though they don't necessarily throw the general balance - esp. combat balance -- out of whack. To that end, assorted Rules of X and eye-balling individual powers is necessary in fantasy, horror, and science fiction games.