Can you create temporary weapons?

[Lucius]

On 1/18/2019 at 9:18 AM, Christopher said:

 

 So your argument that I am some rules fanatic does not exist outside your head.

 

 

It looks to me like the only head that argument is lodged in is yours, Christopher. Jammed in pretty firmly too, it looks like.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Checking palindromedary heads for lodged arguments

[Ninja-Bear]

I do need to apologize to Christopher about the sword. He did say that the Axe was one of the  upper example weapons and one can go higher. So on that count I am wrong and will admit it.

[Christopher]

On 1/19/2019 at 8:17 PM, Lucius said:

It looks to me like the only head that argument is lodged in is yours, Christopher. Jammed in pretty firmly too, it looks like.

Please give me your alternative interpretation of this then:

On 1/14/2019 at 10:30 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

Christoper you do understand that you keep quoting weapons from the book as if those write ups are absolute.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Christopher you did see that I apologized  about that comment? If not  I do now. You  were not absolute in weapons.

[Sean Waters]

OK then…I’ll probably be re-hashing ideas that have already been hashed, as I’m late to the party but how I did this would very much depend on whether this is a heroic game, where you don’t normally pay character points for ‘normal’ weapons, or whether it is a game where you pay for everything.

 

If you pay for everything then you pay for the power that reflects what the sword can do: being a sword is just SFX.  That would probably be a Useable By Others Hand Killing Attack, possibly with variable SFX if you wanted to be able to conjure various weapons and had a tight GM.

 

So 1d6 HKA UOO (up to 4 others, one at a time for up to X minutes) 22 AP.  Boom.  I mean, you can add +1 OCV, which will add another 8 points if you like.  You get quite a special sword as it does not have a STR minimum and so can churn out more damage than most real swords in practice.

 

If you would not normally pay for weapons though, I don’t see why you should here.  It is trite, but trite and tested (?) but making something out of nothing is Transform.  I mean, object creation is literally in the write-up.  Creating a normal tool in the world is a major transform, probably, although HERO is slightly schizophrenic on that and ‘creating something out of nothing’ is an example of a Major Transform (as is granting abilities the target does not have), but turning a weapon into a snowflake is an example of a Severe Transform.

 

Either way – consult your GM (I would allow Major Transform here) – you are looking at a 10 or 15 point spell, to start off with.  That only allows you to create swords but for +1/4 you can increase the results group to cover any weapon or similar implement.  Then you have to decide how many points you have to roll on the dice to create the item in question.

 

Again, HERO is a bit schizophrenic here: creating a 6 foot pole out of nothing so you can probe the murky pool probably only requires a point or two of Body to be rolled – easily covered by a single die, using standard effect rules.  Mind you if you want to hit someone with it, it is now a +1 OCV 4d6 HtH attack Quarterstaff.  I’m not even going to try and explain the rules for granting powers and what that costs in terms of what you have to roll – someone else who understands them can do that.  My simple mind thinks that, in a heroic fantasy game (which I am presuming this is), a power like this is only occasionally useful and so I’m going to make it cheap – you pay for utility, after all.  I would suggest that a single die of Major Transform using standard effect can create any ‘simple’ weapon or similar item from a dagger to a lance.  By simple, I mean mechanically simple, basically a single piece that acts as a lever or cutting/stabbing implement or something similar.  I probably would not allow bows and arrows or windlass crossbows, but if you did it wouldn’t be particularly objectionable, it just does not quite feel right – I mean it really isn’t making the power much more effective because you could still conjure a dagger you could throw, so it isn’t an injunction against ranged weapons.

 

So: 1d6 Major Transform (10 points) +1/4 (Increased Results Group) 12 AP – add whatever spell bits you want to that to bring the cost down.

 

If you want a weapon that is better than the sort of thing you could normally buy in the shop i.e the sort of thing you normally carry, I’d probably make it 2d6 Major Transform to add +1 more OCV, or an extra DC of damage OR, and this could work, add Requires Skill Roll and you need an appropriate crafting skill so you could actually make the weapon you want given sufficient time and resources – and this is just a temporary shortcut.

 

I’m stopping now because I can feel myself digressing, but you get the idea. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Everyone keeps pointing out that in Heroic you don’t pay for points for mundane equipment in game. For normal equipment that’s true but the rules say that you should pay for unique items with points.  So I would base the cost on Spells rather than mundane equipment.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh you have an interesting take on costing on wealth. However just because you can hire a group of mercenaries doesn’t give you the same effect as conjuring a sword.  Consider how many mercenaries are there, can they all fit in the same space as you and the party? Will they fight for you all the time or at all? I mean what are the Union rules? ?. So should I base a tunneling spell base on hiring miners?

 

 

[Sean Waters]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Everyone keeps pointing out that in Heroic you don’t pay for points for mundane equipment in game. For normal equipment that’s true but the rules say that you should pay for unique items with points.  So I would base the cost on Spells rather than mundane equipment.

 

You don't though, and that should make a difference.  In a superheroic game if you want a 1d6+1 HKA with a STR minimum and a +1 OCV you pay full points for it because, well, because you do.

 

In a Heroic game you can go to the local blacksmith and buy the same thing for 8 gold pieces or, you know, whatever.  Warrior characters do not have to become less effective warriors just to afford a longsword, much like EVERY OTHER RPG.  That, in effect is what makes HERO unique.  Ish.

 

Don't like free stuff?  Pay for the power in full then.  Also not a problem.  This is all down to what you think the game should be played like.

 

Me, I'd say that what you are getting is the ability to have a sword with you most of the time, which is what you can get from buying a sword with gold.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

16 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

 

You don't though, and that should make a difference.  In a superheroic game if you want a 1d6+1 HKA with a STR minimum and a +1 OCV you pay full points for it because, well, because you do.

 

In a Heroic game you can go to the local blacksmith and buy the same thing for 8 gold pieces or, you know, whatever.  Warrior characters do not have to become less effective warriors just to afford a longsword, much like EVERY OTHER RPG.  That, in effect is what makes HERO unique.  Ish.

 

Don't like free stuff?  Pay for the power in full then.  Also not a problem.  This is all down to what you think the game should be played like.

 

Me, I'd say that what you are getting is the ability to have a sword with you most of the time, which is what you can get from buying a sword with gold.

But this power gets you more sword more often.  But swords don't cost points.  But this power should cost more. 

Therefore this power should cost more gold than a sword. 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Hugh you have an interesting take on costing on wealth. However just because you can hire a group of mercenaries doesn’t give you the same effect as conjuring a sword.  Consider how many mercenaries are there, can they all fit in the same space as you and the party? Will they fight for you all the time or at all? I mean what are the Union rules? ?. So should I base a tunneling spell base on hiring miners?

 

First off, I am not saying "this is wealth".  I am saying "If I had enough wealth to have all the swords I could ever need, what would that cost?  Now let's work out the cost of conjuring swords at will with an eye to that comparable cost."  I am also saying that, perhaps, "can create a sword in a half phase action" is not best considered a Power, but rather a Perk. 

 

The cost of enough Wealth seems pretty comparable.  On the one hand, Wealth would still require me to find someone who can sell, or make, a sword, and then cart it along with me, so being able to pluck a sword from thin air at will reasonably should cost more.  On the other hand, wealth can buy much more than swords (or weapons in general), so that should reduce the cost compared to Wealth.

 

Comparing the Tunnelling power to hiring a group of miners is a much bigger stretch.  However, enough Wealth to hire them might well be a reasonable base price for "Summon a bunch of miners who can tunnel just as effectively as a bunch of miners you could hire for money".

 

Another approach would be to cost out the weapon, then change "OAF" to "Restrainable" and base the cost on the difference in points.  This sword cannot effectively be taken away, but is otherwise identical to the sword everyone else bought at the shop.  It fades away after a minute, so that does not seem like an overpowered result. 

 

Just as a limitation should not save more points than is mandated by the actual drawbacks, the cost of an ability should not exceed the value of the actual benefit.

 

Phrased another way:

 

48 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

 what you are getting is the ability to have a sword with you most of the time, which is what you can get from buying a sword with gold.

 

The sword(s) acquired with gold don't require half a phase to activate, nor do they fade away a minute later.  But they do need to be carried around, and are more easily taken away.  So what is the net value of these differences?  It's not more than a few points, at least in my opinion.

 

30 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

But this power gets you more sword more often.  But swords don't cost points.  But this power should cost more. 

Therefore this power should cost more gold than a sword. 

 

Sure - if we want to base it on wealth, then we need to base it on enough wealth to have a lot of swords.  We also have to realize that this limited by the fact that the swords fade away after a minute, ad by the inability to redirect that wealth to other purposes.

[massey]

A custom perk seems to be a pretty easy way to handle it.

 

Perk:  Summon sword incantation -- 3 pts

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, massey said:

A custom perk seems to be a pretty easy way to handle it.

 

Perk:  Summon sword incantation -- 3 pts

So would you allow summon torch too?

[Sean Waters]

8 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

But this power gets you more sword more often.  But swords don't cost points.  But this power should cost more. 

Therefore this power should cost more gold than a sword. 

 

Say a longsword costs 8gp in your game, as a one off cost, and you have it pretty much all the time.  Have the mage pay 32gp to learn the spell, as a one off cost.  To be honest I can't remember any character in a fantasy game getting through more than a couple of mundane weapons in their career, or, for that matter, the cost of a mundane weapon ever really being a bar to having one.

 

Bear in mind, having the spell does not always mean you have a sword handy.  If the spell requires gestures or incantations, you may be restrained or silenced.  Hugh Neilson  points out that producing a sword with a spell may well be less convenient than simply drawing it from a scabbard.

 

I'd go as far as saying, and this probably won't be popular, in a fantasy game where magic is common, spells should be treated like equipment - something you can just buy, not something you have to pay character points for.

 

I mean, why should the warrior get a longsword, armour and shield and still have all the starting character points to spend, and the mage have to fork out character points for the spells FlameHand, Armour of Artemis and Protego?  The game balance would then come from the GM building a spell list like they have to build an equipment list.  Those spells should not be more effective, on balance, than mundane equipment.  What is so special about spells?

[Sean Waters]

48 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

So would you allow summon torch too?

 

Yes, I would.  I'd build it as a Major Transform.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

6 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

Say a longsword costs 8gp in your game, as a one off cost, and you have it pretty much all the time.  Have the mage pay 32gp to learn the spell, as a one off cost.  To be honest I can't remember any character in a fantasy game getting through more than a couple of mundane weapons in their career, or, for that matter, the cost of a mundane weapon ever really being a bar to having one.

 

Bear in mind, having the spell does not always mean you have a sword handy.  If the spell requires gestures or incantations, you may be restrained or silenced.  Hugh Neilson  points out that producing a sword with a spell may well be less convenient than simply drawing it from a scabbard.

 

I'd go as far as saying, and this probably won't be popular, in a fantasy game where magic is common, spells should be treated like equipment - something you can just buy, not something you have to pay character points for.

 

I mean, why should the warrior get a longsword, armour and shield and still have all the starting character points to spend, and the mage have to fork out character points for the spells FlameHand, Armour of Artemis and Protego?  The game balance would then come from the GM building a spell list like they have to build an equipment list.  Those spells should not be more effective, on balance, than mundane equipment.  What is so special about spells?

On further thought, magic that duplicates equipment should cost money.  Magic that cannot be duplicated with equipment should cost points.  Magic that straddles the difference should cost some of both. 

So the spell Claudif's Cantrip of Conjure Cudgel should be a gold cost.  Same with creating light, shooting magical bolts*, running at horse-speed for long distances in straight lines, etc. 

But spells like teleportation, fireball, see future, ask god questions should all require points, since you can't do that with equipment.  No Billy, tying a halfling to a 10' pole does not make it equipment. 

Spells like killing cloud, really good armor, shoot super magical arrow, those should cost both money enough to cover the equipment they're outdoing and then some points to cover the further advantages they have. 

 

*: If ED is commonly much lower than PD, any ED attack should have a point surcharge since it's basically AVLD at that point. 

[Christopher]

On 1/12/2019 at 7:28 PM, dekrass said:

Fair point. Specificity is often helpful.

I'm trying to replicate a series of spells that all just make different weapons. They were made in O.L.D. Which is a game with a flexible magic system in which you build your spells based on a bunch of variable parts with magic point costs attached.

One of the original spells looked like this.

Instant Longsword

Create Metal

Cost 2MP ; Skills creation 1

Casting Time 1 action

Duration 1 minute

Range: touch ; Target: object created

You create a longsword. It is medium and does 3d6+2 slashing damage. It weighs 4 pounds.

Costs: 1MP create object, 1MP duration

 

The above constitutes a simple low level spell in that game. I'm trying to translate that into a heroic HERO 6th edition game. The GM has decided to make all spells part of a multipower framework. Spells must have either gestures or incantations, usually both. All spells require a casting roll. All spells cost endurance, and the spellcasting multipower draws from an endurance reserve.

The example spell would have a simple base. A HERO 6e longsword would need 4 DCs, strength minimum 12, reduced endurance, and a linked 1m reach. The tricky part is the requirements of the campaign's spell system.

 

As an aside, are there guidelines in the books for how much damage characters should be doing? If so, where might I find them?

In case you wonder why we are still arguing:

While there is 1 path in RAW, the price can be an issue. One rule is "you get what you pay for", but that in turn means powers should not be too expensive either.

 

The RAW way is Hand to Hand Killing Attack, 0 END* Useable by others, with proper advantages and limitations. Propably something generic like "only Weapons for Campaign Weapons List (-1/2)"

*Otherwise you have to pay Endurance to use the Damaging Power

While that is the book legal way, it might be too expensive for the Effect.

 

Object Creation and Transform are generally locked out for "creating effects that other powers cover". With weapons being explicitly mentioned. I think the danger is that you might summon and sell those weapons, effectively getting wealth. Or end up equipping the whole City Garission/Rebellion with weapons, effectively sidestepping a adventure part.

I still think the 1 minute duration greatly limits that. Anything more might not work, even 5 minutes might be too much.

 

One option I remember from the APG's is what I call the "Naked Buyoff". Basically you create a power whose sole purpose is to remove another power (or piecee of equipments) limitation.

It is mentioned in APG I 142.

The Limitation you want to get rid off (or at least lessen) is the Focus Limitation on those weapons. Most weapons have "Obvious Accessible Focus (-1)". You want to get rid of the accessible part (can no longer be disarmed) and possibly the obvious part, buying it all the way down to -1/4 at worst. Or maybe even only the obvious part (you are not seen as armed until you want too).

 

And of course there is the option that the GM could just invent a power.

[massey]

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

In case you wonder why we are still arguing:

 

We're still arguing because you keep saying crap like this:

 

Quote

While there is 1 path in RAW, the price can be an issue. One rule is "you get what you pay for", but that in turn means powers should not be too expensive either.

 

The RAW way is Hand to Hand Killing Attack, 0 END* Useable by others, with proper advantages and limitations. Propably something generic like "only Weapons for Campaign Weapons List (-1/2)"

*Otherwise you have to pay Endurance to use the Damaging Power

While that is the book legal way, it might be too expensive for the Effect.

 

There are lots of book legal ways to do it, not just the Christopher way.

[Ninja-Bear]

Sean btw I’m not against a perk style magic system as is. I just don’t see  though pricing one spell (in this case the sword)  as a perk when the rest of the spells aren’t. 

[Christopher]

On 1/25/2019 at 10:42 PM, massey said:

We're still arguing because you keep saying crap like this: 

That post was my first post since monday.

 

And my last on topic one was on 14th of January.

 

Please enlighten me how that works out?

 

On 1/25/2019 at 10:42 PM, massey said:

There are lots of book legal ways to do it, not just the Christopher way.

Then name them. And stop calling me a fanatic.