Levels, Balance and Development

[zslane]

Running is always an option.

I love putting characters up against monsters completely capable of slaughtering them just to see how they respond to it.

I'm with you on that one, NSG.

 

I do think, though, that you have to be careful with that sort of thing. Yes, it is important to make players realize that not every encounter is winnable. You're not running a fairy tale campaign, after all. But I think it is usually better to teach that lesson with something less painful than a total party kill, even if their hubris (or poorly calibrated expectations) would realistically get them wiped out.

[Manic Typist]

Yup, that's how I envision high adventure cinematic heroic role playing - protagonists who either flee from everything or get slaughtered.

 

 

 

 

I see what you're saying, but I also see that most every cinematic action movie involves the heroes running from most fights.

[Richgee]

They also involve a 25 point farm boy suddenly realising he has a spare 350 character points that he forgot to spend 90 minutes ago when his gm said "ok let's get this game started." ;-)

[Cantriped]

I have tinkered with the idea of "levels" and "challange ratings" for a while, and this is what I have come up with so far.

 

In pathfinder, an encounter with a given challange rating is usually composed of roughly twice as many of the same monster as an encounter with a challange rating 1 point lower. In addition, a character level, in pathfinder, increases their challenge rating by +1.

This indicates to me that in the HERO System one unit of "Challange Rating" should be roughly equal to either doubling the number of "monsters" you use to build the encounter, or giving every member of the original encounter an additional 25 CP. Thus one "level" of advancement is worth roughly 25 CP

 

The basic "Adventurer's Level-Up" package might include:

Every character purchases +1 CON, +1 EGO, +1 BODY, +2 STUN, and +5 END per "Level" of advancement; unless noted otherwise.

   Classes with d6 or d8 HD would purchase +2 BODY, and +4 STUN per "Level", and classes with d10 or d12 HD purchase +3 BODY and +6 STUN per "Level".

   Classes with High Fortitude would purchase +1 to CON Rolls per two "Levels".

   Classes with High Will would purchase +1 to EGO Rolls per two "Levels"

   Classes with High Reflex would purchase +1 to DEX Rolls per two "Levels"

+1 OCV per two, three, or four "levels" (for classes with good, fair, or poor Base Attack Bonuses respectively)

+1 DCV per four, six, or eight "levels" (if the class would have gained Armor Class Bonuses from advancement)

+1 PD/ +1 ED plus +1 rPD/+1 rED per four "levels" (if the class would have gained Damage Reduction from advancement)

Every four levels, a character should spend 5 CP on base characteristics of their choice (STR, DEX, CON, INT, EGO, or PRE)

 

The remaining 8.75 to 17.5 CP per "level" woulf be used to purchase abilities which represent the pathfinder equivalent's unusual class features, skill-points and feats.

   Classes with "Trapfinding" might purchase +1 to Concealment, Lockpicking and Security Systems (as 3-point SLs), Only Against Traps & Ambushes (-1) every two "levels"

   Classes with "Weapon" or "Armor Training" might purchase +1 with the selected Weapon or Armor (as 3-point CSLs) every four "levels".

   Classes with "Sneak Attack" or "Favored Enemy" might purchase the Deadly Blow talent up to once every six "levels".

   Classes with improved movement speeds might purchase as much as +2m Running per "level", or 1m of Leaping/Swimming per two "levels"

   Spellcasting classes might purchase skill levels with Knowledge (Arcane and Occult Lore), Analyze (Magic), combat skill levels with spells, or new spells.

   Troubleshooting and/or diplomatic classes might purchase agility and interaction skills, or skill levels with them; up to +1 to a given skill per two "levels".

   Martial classes might purchase additional martial maneuvers, combat skills (including CSLs, PSLs, and MSLs) and combat talents.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Yup, that's how I envision high adventure cinematic heroic role playing - protagonists who either flee from everything or get slaughtered.

 

I think it's important to ensure the players and GM have a common vision in this regard, or conflict in game takes a back seat to conflict out of game.

Its not everything obviously. Its every once in a while and in general, it will be a story element. One thing that bugs me about some games is how none of the powerful monsters actually exist in the world until the PCs are powerful enough to face them. I find that to be completely unrealistic.

 

So I will oftentimes come up with scenarios where the PCs are completely outclassed. Mostly the creature or enemy will be backdrop. It wont be interested in the PCs, but if they insist on attacking it, they''ll get humbled. But I also provide an avenue of escape or distraction. A harrowing escape from a powerful enemy like a dragon or a deathknight can be an exciting scenario in its own right.

 

In one of my games, at the very beginning, the PCs were sold a treasure map. However the map was also being sought after by some very powerful individuals (of course) and a Herald of the Night (equivalent to a 20th level Anti-Paladin) came looking for it.

 

The party mage was able to sense the waves of dark power emanating from the Herald and the party fled from him. They managed to make it to their ship (one of the PCs was first mate on a pirate vessel) and set sail for the island that held this treasure.

 

When they got to the island and fought their way to the cavernous volcano at its center, they discovered the treasure.....and its guardian...a young dragon. Another fight they werent ready for, so they used stealth to try and acquire what treasure and magic items they could...when the Herald showed up...it had followed them across the ocean carrying the party's Theif's main rival with him (who had seen the map...i based him off Benny from The Mummy) which of course roused the dragon. The dragon and the Herald began an epic battle which aggravated volcanoe which began to erupt initiating a sequence where the PCs had to escape the erupting volcanoe while avoiding the debris caused by the clash of the titans happening around them. It was actually a really cool scenario.

[Pegasus40218]

Yup, that's how I envision high adventure cinematic heroic role playing - protagonists who either flee from everything or get slaughtered.

 

I think it's important to ensure the players and GM have a common vision in this regard, or conflict in game takes a back seat to conflict out of game.

While I understand and agree (to a point) with the sentiment here, I also think that the PCs should be faced with the occasional opponent they can't (or at least are unlikely to) beat.  If every opponent is simply there to be killed in a stand-up fight, all the PCs will ever do is engage in stand-up fights against everything (because they'll know they can beat it -- otherwise, it wouldn't be there).  That said, the GM has an obligation to give the PCs enough information before beginning the fight that they're unlikely to win, so they will at least consider alternative actions.

 

Quite frankly, that's one of the problems I've had with the group I game with.  Virtually every encounter is a combat encounter, and generally speaking the odds are stacked heavily in the PCs favor.  In the few encounters where the PCs have been outclassed, there was no indication before the fight started, and once the fights started there was no escape (the party couldn't outrun their opponents, and there was no reason for the opponents to allow the PCs to flee).  It was, most definitely, NOT a good experience for the players.

[Pegasus40218]

What style of low fantasy campaign would you like to run, and what about the recommended point levels do you feel are too high? In 6E I feel it would be fairly easy to make 200-250 pt low fantasy characters who are still quite capable -both off and on the field of battle.

 

I'd like to run a low-magic / magic-rare campaign.  (I get tired of seeing games devolve into the party wizard or cleric "solving" every problem.)  I want the players to rely on skill and strategy to solve problems and defeat opponents rather than simple brute force.  Unfortunately, my group is coming from a D&D / Pathfinder background and the players have a tendency to completely min/max (not entirely a bad thing), but only when it comes to combat capabilities.  Very little attention is paid to character background -- in my opinion because the GMs typically run "canned" adventures / adventure paths where the PCs backgrounds simply don't matter.  Character building tends to be a purely mechanical process, and outside of combat, the characters do not have any sort of defined personalities.

 

I'm relatively new to HERO (played in a Champions campaign back in college -- liked the system but didn't play a complicated character so didn't really explore and discover the ins and outs).  I've read the books (6E1 & 6E2, Advanced Players Guide, and HS Martial Arts, among others), but quite frankly have difficulty identifying where / how to define limits for a campaign.  Our first foray into Fantasy Hero was a disaster -- mainly because the players decided to be assholes to each other and try to kill each other off...and we struggled a bit with the mechanics (which is very different from d20). 

 

Next, to try to get a better handle on the mechanics, I decided to "take the gloves off" and give a full-blown 400pt Champions game a try.  That went a little better, but again we struggled with the mechanics.  Also, the players didn't put any effort into creating backgrounds for their characters...and any time a character was discovered to have a weakness, instead of accepting that the character might actually be vulnerable to something, they immediately started buying up defenses against that opponent with either extremely weak justification or no justification at all.  Bottom line -- they didn't want to put any thought/effort into their characters.  They just wanted to show up and play.

 

This continued into our next Fantasy HERO game (which went a little better than the first, but not much).  The problem I ran into was that the players had figured out a little bit more of the system, and built characters that were so maxed out in combat that they couldn't be hit, and completely maxed out damage.  The mentality of the group is such that pretty much every character was using a weapon capable of 2d6K, and had CSLs and/or martial maneuvers to add DCs on top of that.  OCV was such that the PCs would almost never miss, DCVs were such that they generally couldn't be hit...and when they were hit, their defenses pretty much ensured they suffered no damage...and much of this was accomplished through Martial Maneuvers (buying just enough martial arts to get the maneuvers to give them these bonuses)...and as a relatively new GM, I didn't see it until it was too late...and the players refused to tone the characters down when the problem was pointed out to them.  This made it impossible for me to use "stock" creatures without heavily customizing them to make them more challenging -- and since I work 50+ hours most weeks, I simply don't have the time for that...And remembers:  these are the capabilities the characters STARTED the campaign with...If they'd built up to that, it might have been better...but just starting out? 

 

And this was with 175 (125+50) point characters.  I found it extremely frustrating and eventually had to just end the campaign.

 

So, yes, in my experience working with players coming from typical d20 gaming systems, 175 points is simply too much.

 

I've even tried cannibalizing things from other systems to make things (in my opinion) "better".  For example, using the FATE character creation system to generate something of a background story for each character and have all of those characters tied together already in the story...but even that tended to fall flat.

[Richgee]

You could go for 75+75 point characters max 9 total damage classes with an average of 6-7. Max ocv 8 max dcv 8. Normal human maximum for characteristics with no more than 3 above 15 for straight figures. If you start too high there is no where else to go. Keep spells to healing, damage and general purpose (avoid mind control, transformation and aid they can be open to abuse if you don't impose strict controls)

 

Characters at that sort of level will easily deal with guards, goblins and orcs etc but will be fodder for the bigger fish.

 

It also means you can use listed creatures more easily without tweaking them too much.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Yeah listed creatures in things like the Beastiary and MMM (Monsters, Minions and Marauders) are balanced for a 100pt to 150pt campaign. More than that and the creatures become less and less of a threat and some customization will be necessary to maintian the threat level.

[Steve]

As others have pointed out, character points are not as much of an issue as ability levels. If you specify and enforce CV/DC/DEF ranges and maximums, the points characters are built on aren't as big of an issue. Encourage spending on Skills, Perks and Talents by capping combat abilities instead of overall points.

 

Just my two cents on the matter.

[Manic Typist]

Also, it sounds like the issue is the players and not so much the points. They have abused your trust and there isn't a healthy dynamic for cooperative storytelling.

 

You could design all their characters for them and simply not let them have anything you didn't specifically approve, but that creates more work on the front end for you.

 

Would you be able to post an example character? I suspect that some of the excesses you saw stemmed from an imperfect understanding of the rules, or a lack of use of optional rules (or both).

 

However, fundamentally, this might be an issue of "Do I want to play with these people? Is there any of them who maybe is worse than the others, whereas others might be amenable to a game I could run if it was just them and not the entire group?"

[Pattern Ghost]

Yes, it is important to make players realize that not every encounter is winnable. You're not running a fairy tale campaign, after all.

 

A fairy tale FH campaign is an idea I've been kicking around, actually. Funny thing is, Fairy Tales can get pretty gruesome and have some formidable challenges for relatively normal characters. Aside from laziness, one of the things holding me back is actually capturing the feel of a fairy tale, and encouraging fairy tale solutions (which could devolve into after school special moralizing, since not dying is as often the result of a having a good character as it is trickery; I'd guess an RPG version would have to lean more heavily on the trickery/cleverness side.)

 

That aside, and on topic...

 

One thing I really liked about Top Secret: SI was that in their adventure modules, if there was a required skill for the scenario, all characters were given a base level in the skill. I suppose you could say it was training for the mission. So, you got experience, but you also got these other small advancements in between time.

 

Awarding XP for roleplaying or for the natural results of the campaign progression as things such as Contacts or various types of Background skills or positive Reputations, etc., is a similar idea that I'm pretty sure has come up in some Hero publications.

 

It's nice to get those random rewards from time to time. So, my own idea for advancement should I ever get around to running a game was to break out the old Skinner Box by giving those incremental awards (along with Disads picked up along the way, like Hunteds, negative Reputations, Rivalries, etc.) and saving XP awards for larger chunks that could buy more upgrades. As suggested above, with limits on spending in one area, and with the character's in game activities and goals in mind, and also to just let people fill out concepts in the vein of "sure, I can do this, it just hasn't come up yet!" (even if it had).

 

So, maybe by the time characters had banked say, ten points, they've also been doled out another 5 or so points in the same time frame.

[Richgee]

I know this is a bit out of left field, but you could run a few games of Paranoia (old dystopian game of brutal double crossing) to get the back stabbing out of their system, and some survival horror to get them in the mood for cooperation. You can run 50 point hero characters for a good survival horror game either fantasy or modern. Low level work together or die alone can me fun to run, just keep a few spare pre generated characters to hand.

[Wardsman]

I'd like to run a low-magic / magic-rare campaign.  (I get tired of seeing games devolve into the party wizard or cleric "solving" every problem.)  I want the players to rely on skill and strategy to solve problems and defeat opponents rather than simple brute force.  Unfortunately, my group is coming from a D&D / Pathfinder background and the players have a tendency to completely min/max (not entirely a bad thing), but only when it comes to combat capabilities.  Very little attention is paid to character background -- in my opinion because the GMs typically run "canned" adventures / adventure paths where the PCs backgrounds simply don't matter.  Character building tends to be a purely mechanical process, and outside of combat, the characters do not have any sort of defined personalities.

 

I'm relatively new to HERO (played in a Champions campaign back in college -- liked the system but didn't play a complicated character so didn't really explore and discover the ins and outs).  I've read the books (6E1 & 6E2, Advanced Players Guide, and HS Martial Arts, among others), but quite frankly have difficulty identifying where / how to define limits for a campaign.  Our first foray into Fantasy Hero was a disaster -- mainly because the players decided to be assholes to each other and try to kill each other off...and we struggled a bit with the mechanics (which is very different from d20). 

 

Next, to try to get a better handle on the mechanics, I decided to "take the gloves off" and give a full-blown 400pt Champions game a try.  That went a little better, but again we struggled with the mechanics.  Also, the players didn't put any effort into creating backgrounds for their characters...and any time a character was discovered to have a weakness, instead of accepting that the character might actually be vulnerable to something, they immediately started buying up defenses against that opponent with either extremely weak justification or no justification at all.  Bottom line -- they didn't want to put any thought/effort into their characters.  They just wanted to show up and play.

 

This continued into our next Fantasy HERO game (which went a little better than the first, but not much).  The problem I ran into was that the players had figured out a little bit more of the system, and built characters that were so maxed out in combat that they couldn't be hit, and completely maxed out damage.  The mentality of the group is such that pretty much every character was using a weapon capable of 2d6K, and had CSLs and/or martial maneuvers to add DCs on top of that.  OCV was such that the PCs would almost never miss, DCVs were such that they generally couldn't be hit...and when they were hit, their defenses pretty much ensured they suffered no damage...and much of this was accomplished through Martial Maneuvers (buying just enough martial arts to get the maneuvers to give them these bonuses)...and as a relatively new GM, I didn't see it until it was too late...and the players refused to tone the characters down when the problem was pointed out to them.  This made it impossible for me to use "stock" creatures without heavily customizing them to make them more challenging -- and since I work 50+ hours most weeks, I simply don't have the time for that...And remembers:  these are the capabilities the characters STARTED the campaign with...If they'd built up to that, it might have been better...but just starting out? 

 

And this was with 175 (125+50) point characters.  I found it extremely frustrating and eventually had to just end the campaign.

 

So, yes, in my experience working with players coming from typical d20 gaming systems, 175 points is simply too much.

 

I've even tried cannibalizing things from other systems to make things (in my opinion) "better".  For example, using the FATE character creation system to generate something of a background story for each character and have all of those characters tied together already in the story...but even that tended to fall flat.

 

Hero can require more work for a GM than other systems. You decide if you allow martial arts , how many combat levels etc.

And if they balk, remind them it is a tool kit system.

 

I'm looking at a system where all mages as part of their package deal define susceptibilities and vulnerabilities(taboos) as the cost of doing magic,

Very thematic of many myths. Susceptibilities cut right thru defenses. I'm also building this into my more supernatural monsters so a fighter who can't beat something physically could use lores to bring something down.

Variations on desolid and damage reductions are good for building tough mystic creatures. Just define the attack that ignores it. And don't make it easy. "The ogre can't be hit most mundane weapons. But a cudgel of rowen harvested and crafted by thy own hands will allow you to defeat it."

You can get away with that in fantasy.

 

Start with all char max except one defining stat that they pick at15. The other one goes to 20.

Look at building a ritual based magic system. They might be able to hang spells for combat. But once that is gone they need a long time to recast. So give Magic users other options in combat.

If Arcane casters use endurance consider ramping it up to Long term endurance.

If you allow divine tie them to charges or endurance batteries that only recharge while (1) they are in good standing with their god and (2) while they do rituals and prayer for their god. Acolytes and priests in RQ(who get reusable divine) owe 50% and 90% of their funds and time to their God. Not a bad idea. It also allows you to say priest you need to go do this.

 

Devise some sort of sacrifice needed to activate found magic items. Don't make them point and click.

Magic should have consequences. Example all summonings are noisy in my world. Any mage in the area can sense them with their arcane sense.

 

Can you post some of the problem character builds?

[Wardsman]

 

This continued into our next Fantasy HERO game (which went a little better than the first, but not much).  The problem I ran into was that the players had figured out a little bit more of the system, and built characters that were so maxed out in combat that they couldn't be hit, and completely maxed out damage.  The mentality of the group is such that pretty much every character was using a weapon capable of 2d6K, and had CSLs and/or martial maneuvers to add DCs on top of that.  OCV was such that the PCs would almost never miss, DCVs were such that they generally couldn't be hit...and when they were hit, their defenses pretty much ensured they suffered no damage...and much of this was accomplished through Martial Maneuvers (buying just enough martial arts to get the maneuvers to give them these bonuses)...and as a relatively new GM, I didn't see it until it was too late...and the players refused to tone the characters down when the problem was pointed out to them.  This made it impossible for me to use "stock" creatures without heavily customizing them to make them more challenging -- and since I work 50+ hours most weeks, I simply don't have the time for that...And remembers:  these are the capabilities the characters STARTED the campaign with...If they'd built up to that, it might have been better...but just starting out? 

 

And this was with 175 (125+50) point characters.  I found it extremely frustrating and eventually had to just end the campaign.

 

So, yes, in my experience working with players coming from typical d20 gaming systems, 175 points is simply too much.

 

I've even tried cannibalizing things from other systems to make things (in my opinion) "better".  For example, using the FATE character creation system to generate something of a background story for each character and have all of those characters tied together already in the story...but even that tended to fall flat.

Caveat: I haven't seen 6th edition. But disadvantages/complications should be part of the build and you should use them.

"And this was with 175 (125+50) point characters." 

I don't know about the new system, but I'd think 75 +75 or even worse should be your starting point . Maybe 50+25 but that is just me.

 

Addendum: Some of us started with 200 pts in our supers games. So I'm not surprised you are having issues.

[zslane]

I encounter problems with low-magic "medieval fantasy" campaigns all the time. In this particular case, the OP's campaign suffers from two problems that didn't exist in (medieval) history: magic that exists but at too low a level to pose a threat to elite fighters, and an economy unrealistic to the point of making virtually unbreakable weapons and impenetrable armor easy to afford. In an environment like that, it is no wonder everyone becomes a fighter and ends up being nigh unstoppable. There are no countervaling measures in the world.

 

Normally, in a magic-rich fantasy environment, the cure for heavily protected fighters are spells that aren't stopped by armor, especially those that control the mind or fool the senses. In a supers campaign, there are always character types that can take down Bricks and Martial Artists (who would otherwise dominate the field of battle due to excessively high DCV or DEF). But in a low-magic world where there are no powerful charm or mind control spells, no psionics, no mental illusions, and no magical entanglements to help offset the supremacy of purely CV/DEF-based fighters, the one-sidedness of the combat sphere is going to pose problems.

 

So there's got to be some balancing force in the world, whether it is magic or the sheer rarity of high-quality weaponry and armor, or else fighters will reign supreme and your campaign will be full of nothing but Conans and Kulls (but without the counter-balancing effect of the Thoth Amons and Thulsa Dooms of S&S literature).

[Wardsman]

I encounter problems with low-magic "medieval fantasy" campaigns all the time. In this particular case, the OP's campaign suffers from two problems that didn't exist in (medieval) history: magic that exists but at too low a level to pose a threat to elite fighters, and an economy unrealistic to the point of making virtually unbreakable weapons and impenetrable armor easy to afford. In an environment like that, it is no wonder everyone becomes a fighter and ends up being nigh unstoppable. There are no countervaling measures in the world.

 

Normally, in a magic-rich fantasy environment, the cure for heavily protected fighters are spells that aren't stopped by armor, especially those that control the mind or fool the senses. In a supers campaign, there are always character types that can take down Bricks and Martial Artists (who would otherwise dominate the field of battle due to excessively high DCV or DEF). But in a low-magic world where there are no powerful charm or mind control spells, no psionics, no mental illusions, and no magical entanglements to help offset the supremacy of purely CV/DEF-based fighters, the one-sidedness of the combat sphere is going to pose problems.

 

So there's got to be some balancing force in the world, whether it is magic or the sheer rarity of high-quality weaponry and armor, or else fighters will reign supreme and your campaign will be full of nothing but Conans and Kulls (but without the counter-balancing effect of the Thoth Amons and Thulsa Dooms of S&S literature).

Define low power.

Also some may want magic to be rare. And fighters dominate. Some may not.

 

I have been thinking of rewriting Mythic Egypt for 5th edition with some ideas from Glorantha on its magic and cults.

Both settings are Bronze Age and polytheistic. 

 

Fighters and thieves could get some simple but limited battle magic(spirit magic). Divine would be a little bit more developed but tied to serving the cults (Ra , Horus, Set, Isis). And there would some  arcane casters with a powerful, flexible, but limited  ritual system.

[Spence]

That aside, and on topic...

 

One thing I really liked about Top Secret: SI was that in their adventure modules, if there was a required skill for the scenario, all characters were given a base level in the skill. I suppose you could say it was training for the mission. So, you got experience, but you also got these other small advancements in between time.

 

 

I had GM back in the day that ran Espionage and had each PC dedicate 10 points to Briefing/Specialized Skills/Equipment.    For each mission, he would use those points to assign mission specific whatever to the PC's.  As we gained experience we would add points allowing for more.  

 

I had totally forgotten about it until now. 

[Pegasus40218]

You could go for 75+75 point characters max 9 total damage classes with an average of 6-7. Max ocv 8 max dcv 8. Normal human maximum for characteristics with no more than 3 above 15 for straight figures. If you start too high there is no where else to go. Keep spells to healing, damage and general purpose (avoid mind control, transformation and aid they can be open to abuse if you don't impose strict controls)

 

Characters at that sort of level will easily deal with guards, goblins and orcs etc but will be fodder for the bigger fish.

 

It also means you can use listed creatures more easily without tweaking them too much.

While I like the idea, how do you go about enforcing it?  I don't see a problem with enforcing the caps, I see a problem with trying to achieve the averages with the PCs...

[Pegasus40218]

Hero can require more work for a GM than other systems. You decide if you allow martial arts , how many combat levels etc.

And if they balk, remind them it is a tool kit system.

 

I'm looking at a system where all mages as part of their package deal define susceptibilities and vulnerabilities(taboos) as the cost of doing magic,

Very thematic of many myths. Susceptibilities cut right thru defenses. I'm also building this into my more supernatural monsters so a fighter who can't beat something physically could use lores to bring something down.

Variations on desolid and damage reductions are good for building tough mystic creatures. Just define the attack that ignores it. And don't make it easy. "The ogre can't be hit most mundane weapons. But a cudgel of rowen harvested and crafted by thy own hands will allow you to defeat it."

You can get away with that in fantasy.

 

Start with all char max except one defining stat that they pick at15. The other one goes to 20.

Look at building a ritual based magic system. They might be able to hang spells for combat. But once that is gone they need a long time to recast. So give Magic users other options in combat.

If Arcane casters use endurance consider ramping it up to Long term endurance.

If you allow divine tie them to charges or endurance batteries that only recharge while (1) they are in good standing with their god and (2) while they do rituals and prayer for their god. Acolytes and priests in RQ(who get reusable divine) owe 50% and 90% of their funds and time to their God. Not a bad idea. It also allows you to say priest you need to go do this.

 

Devise some sort of sacrifice needed to activate found magic items. Don't make them point and click.

Magic should have consequences. Example all summonings are noisy in my world. Any mage in the area can sense them with their arcane sense.

 

Can you post some of the problem character builds?

I LOVE the idea of the "mythic" vulnerabilities...Wasn't there a "Mythic HERO" in the works at one time?  Based upon what little I read about it at the time, it's probably on a much grander scale than I want my campaign to be (at least to start with), but it might have some interesting ideas...

 

I'm pulling a number of the concepts out of these posts into my "campaign construction notebook" so I don't lose track of them.

 

Unfortunately, my last attempt to run Fantasy HERO with my group was over a year ago, so I don't think I (or anyone else) still has copies of those characters that I could post.  As for our next foray, I have considered creating the characters myself; but, I also want to ensure that the players get a character they will enjoy playing...So, I'm considering using something like the FATE system's character creation process to create a background and important skills list, then sitting down and trying to build the characters from that.

[Wardsman]

I LOVE the idea of the "mythic" vulnerabilities...Wasn't there a "Mythic HERO" in the works at one time?  Based upon what little I read about it at the time, it's probably on a much grander scale than I want my campaign to be (at least to start with), but it might have some interesting ideas...

 

I'm pulling a number of the concepts out of these posts into my "campaign construction notebook" so I don't lose track of them.

 

Unfortunately, my last attempt to run Fantasy HERO with my group was over a year ago, so I don't think I (or anyone else) still has copies of those characters that I could post.  As for our next foray, I have considered creating the characters myself; but, I also want to ensure that the players get a character they will enjoy playing...So, I'm considering using something like the FATE system's character creation process to create a background and important skills list, then sitting down and trying to build the characters from that.

Not familiar with fate. Sounds like central casting which run several of our characters thru for many game systems.

https://rpggeek.com/rpgseries/2519/central-casting

 

You could build your own with a random chart. 5th edition sidekick had random gen for champions characters.

Be a bit of work but you could do that for fantasy. Say one result spent few years as blacksmith (Strength bonus plus skills). Extra years  more skills on increases in existing smith skills. I'd still make pay points or you could give some eps.

 

HOUSE RULE! If Magic costs endurance(or Mana, endurance based on EGO & INT), the cost is 1 per five active points not ten.

No limitation! No points! Just Base rules! that will help rein the arcanes in. 

[Pegasus40218]

Not familiar with fate. Sounds like central casting which run several of our characters thru for many game systems.

https://rpggeek.com/rpgseries/2519/central-casting

 

You could build your own with a random chart. 5th edition sidekick had random gen for champions characters.

Be a bit of work but you could do that for fantasy. Say one result spent few years as blacksmith (Strength bonus plus skills). Extra years  more skills on increases in existing smith skills. I'd still make pay points or you could give some eps.

 

HOUSE RULE! If Magic costs endurance(or Mana, endurance based on EGO & INT), the cost is 1 per five active points not ten.

No limitation! No points! Just Base rules! that will help rein the arcanes in. 

FATE (or Fudge) is kind of an interesting system.  The idea behind character creation is that it is a collaborative endeavor engaged in by the entire group -- nobody creates their character in a vacuum.

 

In a nutshell, the process works like this:

 

You start by coming up with your character "high concept" and trouble aspects. High concept is very much analogous to HERO's character concept -- it's fundamentally who the character is.  Trouble aspects are very similar to HERO's complications / disadvantages (dependent upon which edition you're playing).

 

Next, come three phases.

Phase 1:  Your character's recent history.  You write down a few sentences describing your character's first (most-recent) adventure.  A couple of sentences to a paragraph or two are usually sufficient.  Based upon that story, write down an aspect / trait for your character that relates to what happened in the story.

 

Phase 2:  Your story gets passed off to another player.  Each player adds additional detail to the story by writing about their own character in a "supporting role" of the character whose story the player now holds.  Collaboration with the original player (whose story you're modifying) is encouraged.  Define an aspect / trait for your character related to the supporting role he played in the other character's story.

 

Phase 3:  Repeat phase 2 with a different player.

 

Next, you pick and rate skills.  You get 1 that you are "great" at, 2 that you are "good" at, 3 that you are "fair" at, and 4 that you are "average" at.

 

And that's the basics.  The end result is you have a background, a couple of personality traits, a rough list of skills with varying levels of competence, and some sort of in-game ties to at least two other PCs.

 

-----

I also took a look online for prices and availability for Central Casting.  For a "new" copy, the prices are ridiculous ($70.00 for a used copy, and a couple of sellers online claiming to have new copies wanting $200+).  Think I'll keep looking though...

[Wardsman]

FATE (or Fudge) is kind of an interesting system.  The idea behind character creation is that it is a collaborative endeavor engaged in by the entire group -- nobody creates their character in a vacuum.

 

In a nutshell, the process works like this:

 

You start by coming up with your character "high concept" and trouble aspects. High concept is very much analogous to HERO's character concept -- it's fundamentally who the character is.  Trouble aspects are very similar to HERO's complications / disadvantages (dependent upon which edition you're playing).

 

Next, come three phases.

Phase 1:  Your character's recent history.  You write down a few sentences describing your character's first (most-recent) adventure.  A couple of sentences to a paragraph or two are usually sufficient.  Based upon that story, write down an aspect / trait for your character that relates to what happened in the story.

 

Phase 2:  Your story gets passed off to another player.  Each player adds additional detail to the story by writing about their own character in a "supporting role" of the character whose story the player now holds.  Collaboration with the original player (whose story you're modifying) is encouraged.  Define an aspect / trait for your character related to the supporting role he played in the other character's story.

 

Phase 3:  Repeat phase 2 with a different player.

 

Next, you pick and rate skills.  You get 1 that you are "great" at, 2 that you are "good" at, 3 that you are "fair" at, and 4 that you are "average" at.

 

And that's the basics.  The end result is you have a background, a couple of personality traits, a rough list of skills with varying levels of competence, and some sort of in-game ties to at least two other PCs.

 

-----

I also took a look online for prices and availability for Central Casting.  For a "new" copy, the prices are ridiculous ($70.00 for a used copy, and a couple of sellers online claiming to have new copies wanting $200+).  Think I'll keep looking though...

Yeah doing something fate like should be easy. And yes tying the characters together is a good thing.

Central casting is that dang high?

Yeah I thought about selling Avalon hill RQ too? Those prices are insane.

I missed the hight tide on OWOD MET. I could have cleaned up selling that at one point.*Shrug.*

[zslane]

Define low power.

Low enough that it usually loses to mundane weaponry.

 

Also some may want magic to be rare. And fighters dominate. Some may not.

Well sure, but the OP is having problems with fighters that dominate in a magic-scarce campaign world. So he's either got to reduce the effectiveness of fighters (lower available defenses, weapon DCs, and CSLs), increase the difficulty of obtaining quality gear and training, or bring magic up to a competitive level to counter-balance the supremacy of fighters. Maybe a little of all three. But he's got to do something because his current status quo (magic rare, fighters dominate) isn't working for him.

[Pegasus40218]

Yeah doing something fate like should be easy. And yes tying the characters together is a good thing.

Central casting is that dang high?

Yeah I thought about selling Avalon hill RQ too? Those prices are insane.

I missed the hight tide on OWOD MET. I could have cleaned up selling that at one point.*Shrug.*

 

Here's what I'm seeing on Amazon:

Condition | Price

Used - Good | $69.99

Used - Very Good | $247.26

Used - Very Good | $293.45

Used - Good | $473.01

Used - Good | $665.62

 

+ $3.99 shipping.

 

Crazy.