Magic items purchased with starting character points

[Pizza Man]

I imagine this will be fairly common with players buying simple starting items with their character points. I have a character below with this amulet:

Cost 4……..END 0.  Summoner's Amulet :  Power Defense (10 points) (10 Active Points); OAF (-1), Perceivable (Amulet detects as Magic; -1/2)

 

Cost 16…….END 0. Summoners Amulet:  Endurance Reserve  (80 END, 12 REC) Reserve:  (21 Active Points); OAF (-1), Perceivable (Amulet detects as magic; -1/2)

 

Cost 2………END 0. Summoner’s Amulet: Nightvision (OAF perceivable)

 

I got no comments on the amulet, but it got me thinking...what magic items would you purchase as a starting character?

I could imagine Bracers of Defense 10 PD/10 ED

A ring of warmth, magic swords, all sorts of cool stuff...it just can't be all that expensive since this is a starting character.

 

I am kind of wondering...how would you build the Portrait of Dorian Gray?

Or say a vampiric blade, that heals its wielder as it drains BODY from its victims?

[Hyper-Man]

Roger Zelazney's Amber novels (the basis of the dice less RPG) feature characters with signature items they could always find again eventually no matter how they were lost or taken. So I think a point investment from the beginning means a  back story and something special should be part of it as well. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I am kind of wondering...how would you build the Portrait of Dorian Gray?

 

LS: Immortality and some defenses and regeneration, IIF painting I suppose.

 

Quote

Or say a vampiric blade, that heals its wielder as it drains BODY from its victims?

 

Killing attack with either a heal body or a long-term aid that only boosts to max body.  The drawback to the heal option is that the mechanic in Hero is odd and extremely limited, out of fear that a standard mechanic in every game ever built in the history of role playing and computer games will ruin Hero somehow I guess.

[Hugh Neilson]

To the question of Healing, the question is not one of "can't", but one of "cost".

 

Decreased re-use duration can allow max Healing to apply once per turn.  By RAW, that is as fast as it can get, and is a +1 1/2 advantage.

 

So this Healing would be self-only ("self" being defined as the wielder of the blade) which I would say is -1 (the inability to heal anyone else is, to me, a big one) that is Triggered by hitting a target (zero phase as it adds no time cost, character does not control activation as he must hit, resets automatically - that's +1/2).  And 0 END, of course.  That's +2 1/2 of advantages. 

 

Let's say 5d6 BOD Healing, with those many advantages = 175 AP (wow...), Self Only (-1), Limited to BOD damage inflicted on opponent with the blade (I am thinking a further -1), OAF Sword (-1) = 44 real points.

 

So how does that work?  If a target is struck, roll 5d6.  Maybe you roll 18.  BOD is defensive and costs 1 point, so you can Heal 9 BOD, but only 3 BOD got past your opponent's defenses, and you were only down 1 BOD from prior activity.  You heal 1 BOD.

 

Your target lashes back with a solid hit, and does 8 BOD - you are hurt bad!  Lashing out, you hit and inflict 2 BOD past the target's defenses.  5d6 cannot roll below 4 to heal 2 BOD, and your max has been established as at least 18 CP (9 BOD) for this re-use period of 1 turn, so you heal back another 2 (you still roll the 5d6 - rolling dice is fun) and they come to 12, so the re-use max stays at 18.

 

Your target misses this time, and you strike again, this time hitting a solid blow for 4 BOD.  Your 5d6 again stubbornly stay at or below 18, but at least 8, so you recover 4 BOD.

 

You are struck once more, taking a further 4 BOD.  You are down 6 BOD, and have only 2 left (4 CP) of your top roll of 18 CP this turn.  What happens next?

 

Well, if you have 3 SPD, the turn ends and we start again as we have a new re-use period.  Assume a SPD of 4.  You attack.  If you hit, roll that 5d6 again - maybe you can raise the maximum healed this turn - and see how much BOD you inflict - if it's not more than 2, then the 5d6 roll does not matter much.  You hit for 5 BOD, but unfortunately that 5d6 do not co-operate, so you only get 2 BOD back.  You have shed so much blood this turn that you temporarily sated the blade - but it will thirst again after PS12!

 

Not cheap, but that kind of BOD recovery is pretty powerful, so it likely should not be cheap.

 

 

 

[Pizza Man]

I can see that, but how about a simple magic sword  bought with character points?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

So this Healing would be self-only ("self" being defined as the wielder of the blade) which I would say is -1 (the inability to heal anyone else is, to me, a big one) that is Triggered by hitting a target (zero phase as it adds no time cost, character does not control activation as he must hit, resets automatically - that's +1/2).  And 0 END, of course.  That's +2 1/2 of advantages. 

 

Also: only up to the amount of body drained is a common one, its only ¼, but with that much active cost you need all you can get.  Good luck finding a GM that lets you carry around a 175 active points magic item.

[Hugh Neilson]

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Also: only up to the amount of body drained is a common one, its only ¼, but with that much active cost you need all you can get.  Good luck finding a GM that lets you carry around a 175 active points magic item.

ummmmm...

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Let's say 5d6 BOD Healing, with those many advantages = 175 AP (wow...), Self Only (-1), Limited to BOD damage inflicted on opponent with the blade (I am thinking a further -1), OAF Sword (-1) = 44 real points.

 

 

Emphasis added...

 

I set this quite a bit higher than -1/4 because it is extremely unlikely the character will be doing enough BOD with any given attack to get close to the full benefit of his Healing power.

 

While I generally find AP a poor measure of absolute power, this one has the benefits to back it up.  But then, it also costs 44 real points, and would cost even more if it could not be Disarmed or taken away.  What else could I have done with 44 real points? 

 

I guess I could buy 2 BOD per turn regeneration (32 points) and +30 BOD (only to prevent death; -1 1/2), which seems at least as valuable. 

 

Or I could just buy 1d6 Healing, 1 turn re-use period (+1 1/2), 0 END (+1/2), Constant (+1/2) for 35 points.  Too bad I cannot also make it Persistent, but for 35 points, that d6 rolls on each of my phases, on myself and each of my allies, healing up to 3 BOD per turn.  Hey, for an extra +1, let's make it Line of Sight Range.  45 AP, 45 Real Points - clearly nowhere near as powerful or unbalancing as that 175 AP Vampiric Blade, right?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think a smaller heal with a greatly reduced re-use period is much better than a bigger heal and hope you don't use it all up.  I mean, its cheaper and much more likely to be similar to body damage dealt in any case.  Plus, with GM approval you can go quicker than turn.

 

Again, I'm going to say that the re-use duration and the design of healing in Hero is a bit ridiculous.  Its so restricted its ludicrous, like they are terrified that healing -- something in every rpg ever made -- somehow will break the game if its not nerfed to the point of barely being usable.  I've never seen a game this restrictive on healing powers.  You're better off buying Aid with a big max effect and long recovery time (cannot increase over maximum stat).

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think a smaller heal with a greatly reduced re-use period is much better than a bigger heal and hope you don't use it all up.  I mean, its cheaper and much more likely to be similar to body damage dealt in any case.  Plus, with GM approval you can go quicker than turn.

 

My initial thought was a 1 phase re-use time, but I wanted to keep the Vampiric Blade within RAW.  Hence the large Heal dice to last the full turn in most cases, at least.

 

21 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Again, I'm going to say that the re-use duration and the design of healing in Hero is a bit ridiculous.  Its so restricted its ludicrous, like they are terrified that healing -- something in every rpg ever made -- somehow will break the game if its not nerfed to the point of barely being usable.  I've never seen a game this restrictive on healing powers.  You're better off buying Aid with a big max effect and long recovery time (cannot increase over maximum stat).

 

I can't recall the Boot Hill healing rules, or those in Top Secret, being all that liberal, and they were pretty early to be excluded from "every RPG ever made".  I also find the 3e D&D model of "just carry a few dozen wands of Cure Light Wounds to use between battles" less than reflective of the source material.  Even in those games, Healing is limited - the spellcasters can only cast so many spells each day, an issue rare in Hero spells.

 

I'm not sure that Aid would work a lot better, or be a lot cheaper.  What can you get for 45 points that compares to my Line of Sight "Trollish Regeneration" spell above?  Many RPGs have very liberal healing which is applied after combat ends (3e D&D typically acknowledges healing in combat is not a great strategy).  With 1d6 and a 1 turn re-use time, a minute should be plenty to heal everybody up.  That's 1d6 Healing, 1 turn re-use time (+1 1/2) for 25 points.  Make it a Spell with Gestures, Incantation and a full phase casting time and that's 12 real points.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well lets run some comparison for a Vampiric Sword:

 

Vampiric Aid (Body) 2d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Day; +2 1/4) (45 Active Points); OAF (-1), Only to Aid Self (-1), Only up to the amount of damage done (-1/4), Only up to maximum Body (-1/4), Linked (Killing Attack of sword) (-1/2)

   plus

Aid (Body) 1½d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Day; +2 1/4) (34 Active Points); OAF (-1), Only to Aid Self (-1), Only up to the amount of damage done (-1/4), Only up to maximum Body (-1/4), Linked (Killing Attack of sword) (-1/2), Only to increase maximum effect of Aid (-1)

18 pts, 0 END

 

Vampiric Healing (Body) 2d6, Self Only (+0), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2) (60 Active Points); OAF (-1), Linked (KA; -1/2)

24 pts, 0 END

 

Its a mixed bag.  If your GM isn't happy with big active costs, Aid is a bit higher, but overall is cheaper real cost and has an even more potent effect.  I capped it at fading per day, because that will be pretty much all anyone needs (and conceptually this stolen life force fading away slowly is not unreasonable).  The Aid heals up to 21 body and can do it in a single attack (unlikely but possible) plus it takes effect every phase, while the heal caps at 12 body once per turn.  Note: Self-only healing is a +0 limitation, per the rules; you can't take that as a limitation.  I bought both as linked rather than trigger because it fits better.

 

The lack of "increased maximum effect" is a mistake, that should be standard in the Hero rules and it makes no sense to have dropped that in 6th edition.  So I had to build a kludge of extra dice, just to increase the max effect.  Going from elegant to kludge is never a positive in my opinion (and I couldn't use Cumulative in Hero Designer, because "it already has its own rules for how many Character points can be added to a particular Characteristic or Power and how and at what rate they're added.").

 

Oh, I should add that the big drawback to the Aid vampiric dodge is that it can be dispelled, which may or may not be a conceptual problem.  If you take it as "stealing life force" then letting someone eliminate that makes some sense.  If its just healing, then its a bit poorly designed.  For a few more active and real points you can make the fade rate per month, which is entering into "never goes away" territory by the way.

[Hugh Neilson]

First off, where do you see this "self only heal is not a limitation" concept.  It is at least as limiting as Aid with restricted targets.

 

Second, I do not believe your Linked is functional.  Linked attacks rely on the Combined Attack rules to be usable together.  Both Healing and Aid require attack actions, but are not attack powers and are RAW ineligible for a combined attack (there is a very recent question on the rules board on multiple attacks in this regard).  Back to the Trigger advantage instead of the Linked limitation.

 

I have no issue with Aiding an Aid to enhance its maximum.  However, the Aid to the Aid also needs to be Aided, or it will hit its own cap.

 

Under your construct, the second Aid looks like it can only add 9 CP to the first Aid, which would bring it up to 27 AP (3d6, or a cap of 9 BOD). 

 

You need to Aid the Aid (Aid) as fast as it Aids the Aid (BOD) to keep up (my head hurts now  ).

 

Any new injuries come out of the Aided BOD first, but I don't  believe that means the maximum AID has been enhanced.  If the Sword has added 6 to BOD (the maximum it can with 2d6), and the sword weilder loses another 6 BOD, the well is dry and no further Aid can occur until the old one has faded.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

First off, where do you see this "self only heal is not a limitation" concept.

 

Its not my idea, its straight out of the rules, and you can see by how Hero Designer doesn't allow you to pick that limitation.  I cannot right now find the rules that explicitly state you cannot buy self only for heal, but its in there, somewhere.  Even if you could it wouldn't be worth -1; Aid self only is a mere -½.

 

Quote

Second, I do not believe your Linked is functional.  Linked attacks rely on the Combined Attack rules to be usable together. 

 

Just using Linked the way its been built in Hero for ages.  Nothing in the rules says anything about the power needing to be an attack.  Read the description of the limitation, it only specifies relative power and the inability to use the power except with the link, nothing about attacks or combined attacks or anything of the sort.  One of the examples on page 385 of HSR1 is resistant protection, for example.  Its just a standard Hero way of making two powers go off at the same time, and only together.

 

Regarding Aid I was referring to the old "double maximum effect for +¼ advantage" system that 5th used.  That allowed people to build a small Aid that builds with repeated use like a cumulative.  The build I used gives a maximum effect of 21 points (or 10 body) but only 2d6 of effect per application.

[LoneWolf]

Most games I have been in you do not use character points for magic items.  Depending on the campaign level the GM may or may not give out magic items as part of the starting gear. 

 

On a separate note the perceivable limitation is not valid on your item for two reasons.  First and most importantly it is an obvious focus.  Second of all, any magic is already perceivable by detect magic.  If the focus was not obvious you could use the perceivable, but then anyone would be able to tell it was magic even without casting detect magic. 

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Its not my idea, its straight out of the rules, and you can see by how Hero Designer doesn't allow you to pick that limitation.  I cannot right now find the rules that explicitly state you cannot buy self only for heal, but its in there, somewhere.  Even if you could it wouldn't be worth -1; Aid self only is a mere -½.

 

6e v1 p168 - Aid, Self Only is a -1 limitation.  For 6 points, you can have Aid, 1d6, which costs END and will require 2 attack actions (on average) to enhance an ability by 6 AP, after which they fade.  Self Only at -1 is still pretty pricy, compared to just adding 6 points to the ability.  So I need to see the Heal rule. 

 

Heal does not mention Self Only or Others Only, which is likely why HD does not include it outside Limited Power.

 

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Just using Linked the way its been built in Hero for ages.  Nothing in the rules says anything about the power needing to be an attack.  Read the description of the limitation, it only specifies relative power and the inability to use the power except with the link, nothing about attacks or combined attacks or anything of the sort.  One of the examples on page 385 of HSR1 is resistant protection, for example.  Its just a standard Hero way of making two powers go off at the same time, and only together.

 

Linked means one of the powers can only be used when the other is used, but changes nothing about how the powers otherwise work.  Most powers can be used in tandem by default, such as Flight and Resistant Protection.  Attacks can generally be used together as a Combined Attack.  However, Aid and Healing are not attacks,  but do require attack actions.  I had never considered it previously, but the very recent rules question makes it clear Heal and Aid cannot be part of a "combined attack" action. 

 

If they can be Linked and used together, we are back to the Great Linked Debate over the ability of the Limitation to give a power an Advantage it cannot otherwise possess.

 

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Regarding Aid I was referring to the old "double maximum effect for +¼ advantage" system that 5th used.  That allowed people to build a small Aid that builds with repeated use like a cumulative.  The build I used gives a maximum effect of 21 points (or 10 body) but only 2d6 of effect per application.

 

Oh, OK - I thought you were going for a loop that would make the potential AID unlimited (which was attainable back in 4e when the increased maximum was +1 CP/2 points maximum.  I thought that was the rule in 5e as well - are you sure it became an advantage?

 

So your model will "quasi-heal" a maximum of 10 BOD per day, while mine will heal up to 6 BOD per turn, all day long.  I don't find the Healing power is disadvantaged compared to the Aid, to put it mildly.  Especially when the same 18 points you are proposing to spend on the Aid, to add +10 BOD at maximum, over time, could have bought +18 BOD that is always there instead!

 

EDIT:  Why not just buy more dice in the first Aid, only to increase the maximum possible Aid?  So maybe you buy 4d6, but he can only roll 2d6 at a time to build up to 24 CP.

 

hmmm...that could be used for Heal too - you only get 2d6, but a 6d6 roll sets the maximum healed per day.  2d6 without the limitation and 4d6 with.  Way easier to decrease the re-use period, though.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I had never considered it previously, but the very recent rules question makes it clear Heal and Aid cannot be part of a "combined attack" action. 

 

There's nothing about the description or use of link in the history of Hero which requires it to be an attack or a combined maneuver.  It simply defines two or more powers that always go off at the same time, and cannot be used separately (unless you take a lower limitation, but that's another discussion).  You can build Resistant Protection as a force field and link Flash defense to it.  You can build flight and link power defense to it.  You can build an attack and link a heal to it.  There's nothing whatsoever in the rules that says otherwise and long practice in Hero establishes that you not only can but probably ought to.

 

Quote

I don't find the Healing power is disadvantaged compared to the Aid, to put it mildly.  

 

Well it costs significantly more and how often are you likely to take more than 10 body a day?  And how often are you likely to take more than one body damaging attack in a turn?  You can heal 6 body a turn with Healing, great.  But you can "heal" up to 6 body a phase with Aid.  For fewer points.  I consider that an advantage, don't you?  Personally I allow the re-use duration to be bought down to phase myself. Its quite expensive, but not unreasonable.

 

In 5th edition Hero, Aid was increased with +1 point for every +2 maximum, I guess I was thinking of cumulative.  I cannot see any good reason that option was eliminated.  Can anyone else?

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

There's nothing about the description or use of link in the history of Hero which requires it to be an attack or a combined maneuver.  It simply defines two or more powers that always go off at the same time, and cannot be used separately (unless you take a lower limitation, but that's another discussion).  You can build Resistant Protection as a force field and link Flash defense to it.  You can build flight and link power defense to it.  You can build an attack and link a heal to it.  There's nothing whatsoever in the rules that says otherwise and long practice in Hero establishes that you not only can but probably ought to.

 

Linked has a pretty checkered history.  The resistant defenses and flash defense could be used independently, or simultaneously, without Linked.  So could Flight and Power Defense.  Linking them makes them less versatile, and thus is a limitation.

 

I am pretty sure it started as "they two powers may only be used together", but that is not the current default, as seen on 6e V1 p 383

 

In some cases a character may want to have a lesser power that he must use whenever he uses the greater power. In other words the powers are jointly Linked, because neither can be used without the other (as compared to the usual arrangement, where the character can use the greater power without activating the lesser power).

 

If you have an Attack Power and a Heal Power, then, by the RAW, they cannot be used together.  Linking them, alone, should not override this game limit.  Further, from 6e V1 p 385

 

If the lesser and greater powers are both Attack Powers, he must use them against the same target. He only makes one Attack Roll to hit with them, and it must be the same type of Attack Roll — a power that uses a DEX-based Attack Roll cannot be Linked with one that uses an MCV Attack Roll, except with GM’s permission.

 

Your construct requires the attack be used on one target and the Aid (or Heal) on a different target, a clear violation of the RAW.  Of course, Heal and Aid are not Attack Powers, but they do require attack actions - and swing your sword also requires an attack action.  Flight, ForceFields, Flash Defense and Power Defense do not require attack actions.

 

Finally, from the same 6e V1 p385,

 

For further information and options on using two powers at once, see Multiple Attack, 6E2 73

 

Pretty sure your build is not envisioning the many limits of Multiple Attack maneuvers.  Even if it were, that recent Rules Question says it is not valid.

 

Linked has caused a lot of debate over the history of Hero, precisely because it was perceived as a limitation that allowed an advantage.  Getting Combined Attack clarified in the rules has helped alleviate that, but as this discussion points out, there are still cases where (at least by your interpretation), Linked is an advantage, rather than a limitation. 

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Well it costs significantly more and how often are you likely to take more than 10 body a day?  And how often are you likely to take more than one body damaging attack in a turn?  You can heal 6 body a turn with Healing, great.  But you can "heal" up to 6 body a phase with Aid.  For fewer points.  I consider that an advantage, don't you?  Personally I allow the re-use duration to be bought down to phase myself. Its quite expensive, but not unreasonable.

 

The Vampiric Sword isn't a great item if one does not routinely take BOD damage.  If you pretty much never take more than 10 BOD in a day, why do you chafe under Heal's reuse limitations?

 

Your Aid model allows 6 BOD to be healed in 1 phase, as does the Heal model.  Your Aid model will then permit a further 4  BOD to be Healed later (not the next phase unless you maxed out the second Aid roll as well as the first).  Your Aid is then done until tomorrow, while the Heal is not, although the Blade is sated for the turn if it has only 2d6 of Heal.  The Healed character will be at full BOD tomorrow, when the Aid starts to fade (probably faster than the target's normal healing rate), or is dispelled (as you noted earlier).

 

In a game where the re-use duration can be dropped to once per turn, a further reduction to once per phase seems like no big deal to me, but as noted above, I wanted to present a construct within RAW.

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

In 5th edition Hero, Aid was increased with +1 point for every +2 maximum, I guess I was thinking of cumulative.  I cannot see any good reason that option was eliminated.  Can anyone else?

 

Under the current model, I think the intent is to buy extra dice of Aid instead.  So under the old rule, +2 maximum would cost 3 points.  New rule, I need +1d6, probably at 0 END (+1/2, so 9 AP), only to increase the maximum (if you like the old pricing, call that -2 and there you are).  I agree that its elimination without replacement is bothersome.  Under the old rule, one had merely to define half of the points going to the Aid Adder, and the Aid became infinite, at least when used on oneself (I used that model on occasion with Absorption).  Aid and Absorption have been challenging over the editions - anyone remember the old 1d6 "stun aids", continuous and persistent, from 4e?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

there are still cases where (at least by your interpretation), Linked is an advantage, rather than a limitation. 

 

Um, not being able to use heal whenever you want is pretty limiting.

 

Quote

Your Aid model allows 6 BOD to be healed in 1 phase, as does the Heal model.  Your Aid model will then permit a further 4  BOD to be Healed later

 

Which is better than the heal per turn.  And there's no reason to say you cannot heal more the next phase.  I cannot even begin to understand how you'd figure that: the Aid grants 2d6 character points each phase, up to a maximum total of 21 character points.  Until you reach that total max of 21 points, you can keep Aiding.  Every phase.  I think that's an advantage, don't you?

 

Quote

If you pretty much never take more than 10 BOD in a day, why do you chafe under Heal's reuse limitations?

 

Because Heal is used in other situations than a vampiric sword, and heals more than Body.... is that meant to be a serious question or are you just being goofy?

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Um, not being able to use heal whenever you want is pretty limiting.

 

If I have normal Healing. I cannot use it and attack.  Ever. 

 

If I accept your version of Linked, I can attack and use Healing simply by Linking my Heal to the attack I expect I will want to use.  How do I buy the ability to attack and heal in the same phase without using Linked?

 

Why don't I just Link my healing to my main attack, and take only the -1/4 limitation that allows the Linked power to be used disproportionately.  1/2 d6 Blast and use all my Healing does not sound a lot more limiting than Healing without Linked but now I can Heal and fire off a full Blast in combat at the same time.

 

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Which is better than the heal per turn.  And there's no reason to say you cannot heal more the next phase.  I cannot even begin to understand how you'd figure that: the Aid grants 2d6 character points each phase, up to a maximum total of 21 character points.  Until you reach that total max of 21 points, you can keep Aiding.  Every phase.  I think that's an advantage, don't you?

 

The only way your Aid can be better is if I need to heal a lot in a single turn.  Being able to heal (a lot) more than 10 BOD in a day at the cost of being capped at 6, or even 3, a turn seems more than worthwhile.  Once your Aid hits 21 (10 BOD, so really 20), you are done.  Tomorrow, it will fade 5 CP (so 8 BOD, dropping from 21 to 16) and you can only restore that 5 CP from the Aid.  The Heal gets to start fresh.  On balance, the Heal seems like the better deal in most games, where BOD is likely to be taken more than twice a week.

 

The Aid will have a short-term advantage on potential speed of healing, but I think the superior long-term impact of Heal vastly outweighs it.  Which is kind of what I'd expect when we use Aid as a substitute for healing.  Logically, healing would be a more effective power for healing...

 

Now, let's look at your examples again:

 

Vampiric Aid (Body) 2d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Day; +2 1/4) (45 Active Points); OAF (-1), Only to Aid Self (-1), Only up to the amount of damage done (-1/4), Only up to maximum Body (-1/4), Linked (Killing Attack of sword) (-1/2)

   plus

Aid (Body) 1½d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Day; +2 1/4) (34 Active Points); OAF (-1), Only to Aid Self (-1), Only up to the amount of damage done (-1/4), Only up to maximum Body (-1/4), Linked (Killing Attack of sword) (-1/2), Only to increase maximum effect of Aid (-1)

18 pts, 0 END

 

Vampiric Healing (Body) 2d6, Self Only (+0), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2) (60 Active Points); OAF (-1), Linked (KA; -1/2)

24 pts, 0 END

 

 

Leaving aside the "linked" issue, I believe that "no self only for healing"  has been debunked.  Why doesn't Heal get a limitation for Only up to the amount of damage done?  Tack these on and the Heal is now

 

Vampiric Healing (Body) 2d6, Self Only (+0), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2) (60 Active Points); OAF (-1), Linked (KA; -1/2), Self Only (-1), only up to amount of damage done (-1/4)

16 pts, 0 END

 

That's 2 points cheaper than the Aid, instead of being more expensive, and it can heal up to 6 BOD a turn.  3 BOD a turn seems pretty likely, and it can do this turn after turn, day after day. 

 

For 18 points, why doesn't the character just buy +18 BOD instead of the ability to restore 10 lost BOD using Aid?  That is 8 more than the Aid can help him out with, and it is unlimited - no attacks required.

 

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Because Heal is used in other situations than a vampiric sword, and heals more than Body.... is that meant to be a serious question or are you just being goofy?

 

I find the major use of Heal is to restore lost BOD.  Other characteristics are affected more rarely.  Your comparison to the source material also implied you were discussing the healing of BOD, not Drained powers or STUN/END.

 

However, I would say that Heal should be re-usable more quickly if the ability would already have recovered naturally.  Restricting the Healing of STUN or END to once a day makes such constructs less than useful (here the Aid would likely be the better choice). 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

...this is just getting weird.

[bluesguy]

In my Nyonia campaign magic items fall into a few categories:

• Potions/Scrolls - 1 time use; Uncommon
• Items with charges - The charges tend to be use and lose type.  Although I have considered making a few where the item recharges very slowly (1 charge per week or month) or with some difficulty (dang where did I put my solar to magic wand recharger ?) - Rare
• Permanent items with no charges (weapons, armor, etc.) - Extremely rare/unique

There are no 'magic shops' in my world.  There are alchemists who can make potions in many major cities.  There is only one school of magic capable of making magic items.  Any magic in an item has to be based on an existing spell within the campaign.

 

On the other hand there are schools of magic which can enhance a weapon for a period of time, thereby making it a magic weapon for a short period of time (minutes).

 

So in my world the answer would be no a beginning character can not spend XP to have a 'magic item'.

[Pizza Man]

On 4/3/2018 at 9:13 AM, bluesguy said:

In my Nyonia campaign magic items fall into a few categories:

• Potions/Scrolls - 1 time use; Uncommon
• Items with charges - The charges tend to be use and lose type.  Although I have considered making a few where the item recharges very slowly (1 charge per week or month) or with some difficulty (dang where did I put my solar to magic wand recharger ?) - Rare
• Permanent items with no charges (weapons, armor, etc.) - Extremely rare/unique

There are no 'magic shops' in my world.  There are alchemists who can make potions in many major cities.  There is only one school of magic capable of making magic items.  Any magic in an item has to be based on an existing spell within the campaign.

 

On the other hand there are schools of magic which can enhance a weapon for a period of time, thereby making it a magic weapon for a short period of time (minutes).

 

So in my world the answer would be no a beginning character can not spend XP to have a 'magic item'.

Question. What about an endurance reserve Mages have in the Fantasy hero sample character? The staff he weilded was an END reserve...would that be allowed in your campaign?

[drunkonduty]

For me it very much depends on the type of game I'm running.

 

If I'm running a classic DND style game with gonzo levels magic loot, sorry, I mean LEWTZ, then starting with magic stuff is just fine. Okay, by RAW the players don't start with magic stuff but they accumulate it very quickly. I feel that  players spending starting points (and XP later on for that matter) on magic items is very much the HERO system equivalent.

 

The game I'm currently running is Pathfinder. It's complete with magic item Walmarts. It's not my preferred style but it is what it is and I'm happy to roll with it.

 

If I'm running a low magic style game, and this is my preferred style, then no. In my preferred game style magic items are rare. They are important. They are impressive. They are NOT the equivalent of disposable mobile phones. Hell, they should have names and histories that go with them. "Narsil - Sun and Moon; the family sword of the house  of Elendil, broken in the overthrow of Sauron at the end of the Second Age." Not "+1 holy swords? Aisle 7."

 

I might allow a starting character to buy  magic END reserve  even in a low magic campaign. I think that would depend on the magic system I was using. I kinda like the idea that magic can only be cast by someone with a magical reserve that they need to replenish through long and complex rituals that use costly magical materials.

 

I also prefer restricted access to magical healing. But, once again what I allow or don't allow depends on the style of game I'm running. My current Pathfinder game is a published adventure path. As such it comes with all the base game assumptions. That means, among many other assumptions, it comes complete with an endless stream of CLW wands that are emptied in between major encounters. Hell, last session we had a character death. It'll be fixed with 7000gp worth of magic. 5000gp for the Raise Dead, 1000gp each for the 2 Restoration spells to offset the levels lost from the Raise Dead. That's the cost of death in DND. Bugger all really.

 

But when I compare this cost to the chance of random death it strikes me as fair.

 

For example the death happened to the party wizard in the surprise round of a combat. The character wasn't doing anything foolish. The party were being reasonably careful. One moment he was on full HP. Missed a PER roll so no action in the surprise round. Failed a save so full damage from an AoE attack. Dead. Given how common this sort of situation is in some game styes treating death as a minor medical condition that can be treated with a few mid-level spells seems okay.

 

To sum up my position: it all depends on the type of game you want to play.

[Hugh Neilson]

To take this on, perhaps, a bit of a tangent, what if my character is a Weaponsmith.  Can he start the campaign with, say, a particularly well-crafted Broadsword which has +2 OCV due to its exceptional balance, base damage of 1 1/2d6 KA (a keen edge, well maintained) and a STR min of 10 (again, due to that exceptional balance)?

 

The usual Broadsword has an Active cost of 32 (4 DC KA, 0 END and +1m Reach).  Mine has one more DC, 0 END (so 37 - 30 = +7 AP), +2 OCV (so +4 AP) = 43 AP.

 

It's still an OAF, with -1/2 for STR min, so 43/2.5 = 17 real points.  That's 4 more than a typical Broadsword, and matches the highest RP cost of all HTH weapons on the 6e chart.  Can I pay 17 points (which means I can be pretty much assured of finding or making one if I lose this one) and start the game with this custom gear?

 

If so, why does explaining the added OCV, DC and reduced STR Min as enchantment rather than craftsmanship change that (whether "YES" to "NO" or vice versa)?

 

One perfectly valid answer could be that magic is very rare in this game, so that special effect is not acceptable for campaign reasons, but master craftsmanship can enhance weapons to some extent, so provided I fall within those parameters and have the appropriate level of skill (to craft it myself) or Contacts (to easily replace it), no problem.

 

But how fairly treated will I feel in six months, when everyone can get similar or better weapons with cash/loot and spends no CP to have that gear?

 

It all depends on the specific game we are playing, so there is no "one size fits all" right answer.

[bluesguy]

On 4/5/2018 at 7:08 AM, Pizza Man said:

Question. What about an endurance reserve Mages have in the Fantasy hero sample character? The staff he weilded was an END reserve...would that be allowed in your campaign?

 

Mages in my world don't have END Reserves.  I would consider a Staff that had an Aid to END and/or REC that worked on charges (maybe 4 to 8 ) where the charges would recharge slowly, recharging one charge per week.  That way the mage only uses the staff when they really think they will need it.