Free Equipment - Pros & Cons

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Just now, Hugh Neilson said:

What stops the wizard buying a bow and casting a spell that grants him skill levels with the bow, if that is what he wants?

 

Now he can have the same KA, with the same STR requirement, charges, encumbrance, etc., and a better OCV, DCV and/or DC.

Concept, mainly.  When a player makes a pointy-hatted weaver of the arcane, they have this tendency to want to do magic-things instead of bow-things or sword-things. 

[Doc Democracy]

1 minute ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Concept, mainly.  When a player makes a pointy-hatted weaver of the arcane, they have this tendency to want to do magic-things instead of bow-things or sword-things. 

 

Only in the D&D paradigm.  There are plenty stories where welders of magic are not averse to wielding swords...

[eepjr24]

I was going to bring up the point that the setting has a good bit to do with how "off the shelf" weaponry matters or does not. For example, in Killer Shrikes Here There Be Monsters setting, pretty much anyone can buy standard handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. Truly special weapons require a special pool that costs more than an standard equipment pool. So if you want a Desert Eagle, you can certainly get one whether you are a Faith healer, an ex-Seal or a ex-junkie who sees ghosts. If you want something fully automatic that is going to cost points since it is military grade. It levels the playing field somewhat without taking away the "punch" from the mercenary who has an under-mount grenade launcher. 

 

Another example for me is that mages can often use the "free" foci of others to damage or otherwise hinder them. An entangle spell who SFX is melding the metal joints of armor. NND fire spells based on heating metal weapons and armor. You can also get more nuanced in the real powers of some things like armor. Plate Armor is very good PD, but honestly not that great for preventing energy transfers of the non-kinetic variety. Leather is better, but still not so good against all. 

 

I think you just need to decide how things are going to work in your setting and then design it to work that way. If wizards are of equal power, figure out why that is. If supers carry guns or don't figure out why that is. Laws? Past events? (guns have been taken from supers and used against normals?)  Or just that they are too variable in outcome, if someone has proper defenses they do little to nothing but if they don't, it kills them. (bad result in some campaigns)

 

- E

[Asperion]

The way that I have generally seen this is by a multiple step system.  This is a brief description of what I have in mind.

 

Mundane:  Equipment so basic that it is assumed that everyone will possess it.  While most of these items are not meant for combat, it would not be difficult for one to discover combat uses for them.  Examples are conventional cutlery sets, bakeware, pocket knives.  Most of them can be obtained at most stores for figurative pennies.  Everything here will be obtained at no point cost.

Basic:  This equipment is more capable than mundane but still available to most individuals.  While mundane equipment will not have power, basic equipment could possess simple powered devices that people would have used two or more decades ago.  Examples or basic television, radio, vehicles, buildings.  Everything here should be free to everyone.

Modern:  This is where technology is currently is in the real world.  The equipment here will be pushing what someone can obtain.  Examples here would be smart phone, internet enabled devices, most computers.  Not everyone will possess these items even though they are easy to get.  The big problem here is that they tend to be on the expensive side to obtain and maintain, despite their variety of sources.

Weapon:  In this category one will find devices that are specifically designed to deal damage to another.  It could be as simple as a sword, a bow and arrow to more common guns.  For them to be free, none of these weapons can be anything other than what is available in conventional stores.  Fancy, high tech weapons are not available here.

Advanced:  This category is for devices that are on the limit of conventional equipment.  Iron Man's armor would be an example of this category.  If someone could get this it would be extremely restricted.  Most likely,  the PC should be required to pay points to obtain this category.

This is the way that I have considered dealing with technology.  You might consider another method.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

Concept, mainly.  When a player makes a pointy-hatted weaver of the arcane, they have this tendency to want to do magic-things instead of bow-things or sword-things. 

 

That's typically my goal.  But that means I want effects, not just SFX, that differ from bows and swords.

 

One issue for the "free equipment" is how realistic that equipment is.  For example, everyone has a smart phone.  OK, so is your character carrying his smart phone, tagged to his secret ID, when running around as Captain Crusader?  Can a villain that captures him take his phone and locate his friends and family through his contact list?  How often does that cell phone get broken in combat and have to be replaced?  Or does Captain Crusader have his own cell phone, somehow billed to Captain Crusader?

 

We've had smart phones for a long time.  I don't see them carried in the comics or on the silver screen, although I do see secret IDs using them.

[RDU Neil]

I'm actually impressed that I noticed no one saying, "MUST PAY POINTS FOR EVERYTHING! THAT IS HERO!" which was an attitude I used to run into all the time in the past. It seems others have come around to recognizing that things have moved on from a design perspective.

 

As for many of the concepts, ideas brought up:

 

1. Equipment paid for with points is better than free equipment.  Short answer, I totally agree. Long answer, the dramatics of a game and storytelling often make it difficult to highlight these differences. I find HERO games to be dramatic action games, not grinding resource management games like D&D and such. I'd rather the game not be spent cataloging how many bullets and extra clips you drag around on your mule Pepe from adventure to adventure. Essentially, the GM decisions and game time spent to "penalize" the free equipment (or even Focus powers vs. non-focus powers) is tedious and unfun... so what I'd rather do is find a way to BENEFIT those that DO pay points.

 

2. This leads to similar comments that I saw Doc and Christopher make... that if I paid points for my stuff, I expect certain benefits. I have always felt this way, because I've argued that "Points Spent" are Player Director Stance/Player Control in a game. The more points you pay for something, the more control the player has to say how, when and where it works. The more limitations (to the point of it being free equipment) the more control is ceded to the GM. Now, in the past, the mentality was "Pay points, and any limitation degrades that ability".   I like to switch that thought process to "start with things being free... and the more points you spend, the more effective and accessible your stuff is" So... a free pistol is one thing. A pistol paid for with points but with a focus is better for the PLAYER. And a power that has no limitations is totally in player control." Simply thinking this way enables a lot. If Doc's character gets imprisoned and gets his "Points with focus" bow and arrows taken away. When he breaks out, Doc as the player doesn't look to the GM to say he found the bow... DOC says "I find the bow and arrows tucked under the guard's bunk" because he paid points to have that level of director stance.

 

3. This has worked really well in games where, albeit supers, equipment is still very effective. Think street level, martial arts, cyborg-mercenary, etc. types who use guns and swords and such. Characters are super, but goons with guns are a threat, and guns and hth combat are key to combat. What players tended toward was that they "paid points" for their main weapon, while leaving back-up weapons and basic equipment free. The street ninja had a sword and smoke grenades he paid points for (with foci) but his back-up .357 mangum, mag-flashlight and plastic cuffs were free equipment. Why pay points for things that technically could be "Free" well, the player wanted those thigns to act like powers. No worry that the sword might break if it struck high defenses, no looking to the GM to determine if he had it available, no losing it randomly while acrobating around explosions, etc. The grenades work like a power, not just an environmental effect, he has them when he wants them (barring dramatic loss) etc.

 

4. This has scaled up to high-end supers, where the majority of abilities/powers are paid for, but a lot of the equipment and base materials are not. The players know that those things are ephemeral and can get wiped out whenever the GM wants, because they are free. (It is a running joke to see who's radio/throat mic survives the longest once mega-blasts start getting thrown around.) Ultimately though, what we've started to change is the mentality that "spending points" is something to be min-maxed and avoided, but it is the BENEFIT of being a player character. Spending points is the player getting to define what is cool about the character, what they get to define and direct in the game, etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

On the topic of paying points for everything, when I think back on the evolution from 5th to 6th, the one change I was happiest to see (in part because I had pushed for an explicit statement to this effect) appears on Page 28 of Vol 1

 

But the corollary to that is, if a character wants an ability that’s not likely to have any effect during the game, there’s no reason for the GM to make him spend Character Points on it — he should just get it “for free.”

 

To me, this extends well to free equipment.  Everyone has a smartphone.  It's just part of the background in a 21st century game.  You can access the internet too.  In a WW II game, these would be real powers, but now they are "everyman equipment".  However, getting cell service in deep space, or internet access while fleeing from the villains in an active volcano?  That's not something everyone can do.

[RDU Neil]

17 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

But the corollary to that is, if a character wants an ability that’s not likely to have any effect during the game, there’s no reason for the GM to make him spend Character Points on it — he should just get it “for free.”

 

The problem I have with this is the "not likely to have any effect"... because a cell phone will have an effect. The idea that under normal circumstances the players have quick and easy communication because basically everyone does, will determine how they go about actions in the game. Two PCs can be on opposite sides of the city doing stuff and very easily be in touch almost continuously. Normal today... a superpower in 1985. Equipment DOES have an effect on the game... even if free... it is just that the effect it has is not "special to that PC or players".   When the Players want to have above and beyond what everyone has... THAT is what they are paying points for.

 

(Like, you could easily play a game with a bunch of zero point characters in HERO... they just aren't getting anything special that anyone else in the game world.)

[Toxxus]

16 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I don't know about anyone else, but that's not what I'm saying.  What I am saying is that while the fighter has a 2d6 killing attack sword, the wizard has a 2d6 Variable Advantage RKA Fire Blast.  If the characters are tied up, the fighter's sword is sitting in an evidence room somewhere or on some noble's belt, while the wizard still has his 2d6 Variable Advantage RKA Fire Blast.  

 

What I've noticed in my own campaigns is that at lower levels the mages are more utility than glass cannon as the damage available from gear, martial arts and skills out classes them.  As the campaign progressives and the active point caps on abilities are raised it is not long before the wizard has the right attack for each scenario.

 

My current Saturday campaign is at middling range (everyone is just under 200 character points now) and with the AP cap at 45 points she's definitely the party blaster.  She has 2d6 RKA AP, 2d6 RKA AoE, 8d6 EB, 8d6 Sight Flash and the ability to teleport with up to 1 other person as her primary spells.  Being able to switch so easily from AoE, to normal damage to Armor Piercing RKA for the guys in plate is a huge advantage.

 

During our last session the players took out the enemy boss and only had to take out his two elite guards in full plate.  Right then she had to take the kiddo to TKD class so her character teleports out of the scene.  The rest of the party spends an HOUR wailing on the guys in full plate before they get them down.

 

Anyway, back on topic, the main reason to have gear in Heroic campaigns is that it is such a classic piece of the experience.  If you tell players they can't keep items they find because "points" you'll run into the same immersion shattering non-sense that D&D Adventurer's League started in Season 8 (this season) that caused about 30% of the community to walk off.

* Did you find a magic item?  You can't keep that.

* Did you find mundane gear?  You can't keep that either nor sell it for gold, but you can use it until the session ends.

* Everyone earns a flat rate of income.  Did you find a pile of gold with rubies on top?  Can't keep that either.

* The NPC wants to hire your for a mission of great daring and danger.  In return they can offer you....nothing.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 You shouldn't make characters pay for equipment that is easily available elsewhere.  Cell phones, flash lights, goggles, binoculars, coats for cold weather, regular automobiles, etc. should just be available whenever people want them.

 

That's generally an assumption in any game setting.  Stuff that is widely and commonly available (and normal) you don't have to pay for.  You only have to pay for the "Bat" versions of that kind of stuff; usually smaller, or better, or has special abilities beyond the usual, like a periscope that also can see in the dark, or a drone the size of a playing card.

 

Quote

What stops the wizard buying a bow and casting a spell that grants him skill levels with the bow, if that is what he wants?

 

Nothing, and that's one of the strengths of Hero as opposed to other systems.  If you want a bow-shooting wizard with magically enhanced arrows, you can have them.  I mean, check out Conan: Thulsa Doom creates a magical poisonous arrow out of a snake and fires it out of a bow.

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

* Did you find a magic item?  You can't keep that.

* Did you find mundane gear?  You can't keep that either nor sell it for gold, but you can use it until the session ends.

 

Ah.  My common communication to my players is that anything I "give" them I can take away.  I promise that they will have an opportunity for gear to come into their possession but they should not rely on the fact that it will stay there forever.  Money is especially difficult - large amounts of gold are not always with you and leaving it anywhere in a world filled with adventurers is "risky".  Some of the stuff they have found and own was someone else's and will probably be someone else's at a point in the future.

 

In D&D I seek to provide kit that matches the level of the adventure they are involved in and, if they have suffered a recent loss, the next patron is likely to have some things that they can take to use in their mission.  I really want them to get into the idea that some things are ephemera but I need to be responsive to the fact that some things are signature items for the character, like the cloak of feather fall that the roguish warrior had, to enable him to escape from the boudoirs of beautiful women he had seduced and whose husbands had come home unexpectedly.  When everything else went, the cloak was always retrieved or replaced.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

The problem I have with this is the "not likely to have any effect"... because a cell phone will have an effect. The idea that under normal circumstances the players have quick and easy communication because basically everyone does, will determine how they go about actions in the game. Two PCs can be on opposite sides of the city doing stuff and very easily be in touch almost continuously. Normal today... a superpower in 1985. Equipment DOES have an effect on the game... even if free... it is just that the effect it has is not "special to that PC or players".   When the Players want to have above and beyond what everyone has... THAT is what they are paying points for.

 

(Like, you could easily play a game with a bunch of zero point characters in HERO... they just aren't getting anything special that anyone else in the game world.)

 

To me, "not likely to have any effect" is just as relevant to "it's commonly available, so what you get is the same as what everyone else gets" as it is to "completely irrelevant to the game at hand".  All PCs have two arms and two legs (unless they sell some back).  They're pretty useful, but they cost no points because everybody else has the same advantages.  Everyone has a cell phone isn't any different.

 

As for a superpower - Air Wave, in the golden age, basically had a really limited cell phone.  But no one else did in 1943, so it's a super power/super tech.

 

Now, those two PCs are at risk of their calls being monitored, service being disrupted, or someone tracing the cell signature back to Clark Kent's IP address.  That's not outside the source material either - back in the '70s, R'as Al Ghul deduced Batman's secret ID by assessing the kind of equipment he would require, then searching the few corporate groups that could access that equipment and only Wayne Enterprises met the full profile.  Don't want those drawbacks?  Spend points for a Super Cell Phone.  That might be as little as a Perk - "always gets full bars" - costing a few points based on how often it will be useful, and how useful it will be, compared to everyone else's cell phone.

 

Supers already get at least one piece of free equipment - that mask which completely hides your identity is a pretty high Disguise roll.

[Sean Waters]

Pish pash posh.  We worry too much about balance. 

 

1. Hero is not a balanced game, much as we would like it to be.  Two characters built on the same points are not equally effective: what determines how effective they are is the game they are run in.  If the game is very dungeon and combat oriented then the subtle diplomat is going to be useless, or nearly so.

 

2. In pretty much every other game, equipment is free or, at least, only costed by in-game currency and in-game availability.  This does not tip the game over because it is not just PCs who have access to all this loot.

 

3. The attempts to bring balance to the rules are about as successful as the attempts to bring balance to The Force, and we all know where that leads: Jar-Jar Binks.  As an example I was reading about killing attacks, while I prepare a rant, and saw this gem (1E242):  Increased STUN multiplier (+¼): This Power Advantage increases the STUN Multiplier of a Killing Attack. Characters can purchase it multiple times, with no limit to how many times they can buy it, but must have the GM’s permission to buy it more than once for any particular attack.  Sheesh.

 

4. What stops the pointy hatted Wizard buying a bow and using his magic to enhance his ability?  Nothing, but all the NPCs can do the same thing.  What stops the heavily built Barbarian buying a sword then using skill to enhance his ability?  Nothing either, but no one is getting upset about that, are they?  Another example from also 1E242:  Swordmaster’s Skill: HKA +1d6 (adds to any sword-based HKA), reduced endurance (0 END; +½) (22 active points); only with swords (-½), requires a DEX roll (-½). total cost: 11 points.  Whilst I do not think that is a very good example build, it does illustrate the point.  Badly, but it illustrates it.

 

5. RAW Hero makes you pay for bases.  I, well, I don't even know where to start.  I've never used that whole section.  You tell me the last time a band of adventurers took over an abandoned keep then failed to improve their fighting ability for 6 months to pay for it.  24th of Never, I believe.

 

6. We've had the discussion elsewhere about why swords should be Character Point free and spells are not.  Well, why shouldn't spells be CP free too?  Sure, you don't want every angry mage running round with an 200 point Apocalypse Spell just because they got invited to Neverland as a child and had to spend the hush money somehow, but in any sensibly constructed game-world there will be restrictions on supply, or you could hybrid it: everyday swords and spells are cash only; all the special stuff, you have to splash out for.  Just like in Neverland.

 

My advice to GMs is to fix it in the mix i.e. pitch the game so that it is challenging to these particular PCs and also not be afraid to tell a player 'I don't care if it is technically rules legal, no you can't, because I said so.'  If a player makes a sad face, well, you'll just have to find a way to live with yourself.  Hopefully, however, they will accept that it is wrong to ruin the game for everyone else just so they can go on a mad ego trip.  Obviously being on a mad ego trip is the GM's job.

 

Happy Goram Valentine's Day.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Sean Waters
I used a comma where I should have used a semi-colon, damn my eyes.

[Sean Waters]

18 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

I'm actually impressed that I noticed no one saying, "MUST PAY POINTS FOR EVERYTHING! THAT IS HERO!" which was an attitude I used to run into all the time in the past.

 

....

 

I'd assumed that this was axiomatic.  I make characters spend 120 CP on eating utensils and anyone who wants the ability to skin a cat is going to wind up points poor.

 

What?

[Ninja-Bear]

Sean you beat me to the punch. It think it’s an art with this game of establishing when points do matter and of how much.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

We've had the discussion elsewhere about why swords should be Character Point free and spells are not. 

 

Its a bit off topic, but that's why in my fantasy campaign setting you don't pay character points for spells, you pay for the ability to use the spells, just like with weapons.

[Tech]

The only time I allow free equipment for the Champions campaign is for commonplace items: phone, flashlight, firstaid kid, etc.  Of course, I also allow one-shot plot items for the characters there & there. The only time someone asked why they can't keep some supervillain gear is when I replied, "For game balance." It was enough and hasn't been brought up in a long, long time.

[RDU Neil]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Sean you beat me to the punch. It think it’s an art with this game of establishing when points do matter and of how much.

 

I totally agree it is an art... but the problem is that the source books don't really do a lot to help someone learn the art of "when do points matter" and there is a lot of conflicting perspectives out there. 

[RDU Neil]

27 minutes ago, Tech said:

The only time I allow free equipment for the Champions campaign is for commonplace items: phone, flashlight, firstaid kid, etc.  Of course, I also allow one-shot plot items for the characters there & there. The only time someone asked why they can't keep some supervillain gear is when I replied, "For game balance." It was enough and hasn't been brought up in a long, long time.

 

I think the "leftover bad guy equipment" is a very different issue than "do I have to pay points for normal mundane equipment?" 

If, as a GM, I left an Infinity Guantlet or a Glue-Gun lying around, I'd totally expect the PCs to take it. And if I, as a GM, couldn't craft interesting adventures around those items, I shouldn't be GMing. If the players keep them, but don't pay points, they fall into "found equipment" and will come and go, break down, run out of fuel, just not work, as I the GM say so. If the player wants access to the power of that object, then that is exactly what points are... the PLAYER paying points to have author/director stance over that particular piece of the game world.

[Surrealone]

Neil,

1. I am late to the party and have not read all posts in this thread, as I'm pressed for time, right now (posting during lunch break).
2. I don't see this (i.e. points for equipment vs free equipment) as an either/or problem.
3. Why not?  Simple: Resource points (specifically Equipment points)

I'm currently playing in a Dark Champions (heroic-level) game where all equipment is GM-crafted/created. It is modern genre (so it has cell phones, and today's guns, for example) ... and a basic flip phone costs nada, since pretty much everyone has at least that.  A smartphone, however, does so much more and while 68% of the US population has one, they're still not as ubiquitous as, say, tap water (free water when you go to a restaurant) … so they DO cost something.  A really swanky smartphone (think latest Samsung Galaxy or iPhone) is built as a 20 Active Pt item (costing 4 real points)… by the GM.

 

To put this into perspective (i.e. for context), a GM-built Glock 43 with FMJ ammunition in this game also happens to be a 20 Active Pt item (costing 5 real points) -- nevermind that, dollar-for-dollar, the phone costs twice as much as the pistol with its ammo (in the real world).

 

This is where resource points come in.  Everyone starts with a pre-set allocation of resource points -- some for equipment, some for followers/contacts, and some for vehicles/bases.  Player characters can have on them at any one time (i.e. for a given scenario) equipment whose real costs equal their equipment point total … and they begin play with a maximum of 2x their equipment point total in their arsenal.  As they collect things from adventures, those things are added to their arsenal without additional cost, but the equipment point total, itself, always serves as a cap on how much equipment the character than have with him/her for a scenario.  Last, additional equipment pts can be purchased at a rate of 1 CP per 5 equipment points.

 

IMPORTANT:
It is the real cost of the equipment that is tallied against a character's equipment points, not the active cost.

 

Thus, in a campaign where resource points are used and the starting equipment point total is 50:

• The character could have up to 50 real points worth of equipment on his/her person for a scenario -- at no cost.
• The character could start with up to 100 real points worth of equipment in his/her arsenal -- and change out equipment when able to visit that arsenal to do so.
• If the character wanted to be able to have 55 real points worth of equipment on his/her person for each scenario, s/he would buy a 'Resource Points' perk costing 1 CP. (In Hero Designer terminology, one would buy a 'Resource Points' perk whose type is 'Equipment Points', set the Starting Points value to 50, and then buy 5 'levels' of that perk ... which would end up costing the character 1 CP).

 

There are several big benefits to this approach:

1. The GM controls all equipment (and yes, builds it) -- a very good thing from a balance preservation standpoint
2. A reasonable amount of equipment is available to all characters (defined by them but written up by the GM -- yes this requires working together) … thanks to the campaign starting value for equipment points
3. Characters who want to carry around a pile of useful equipment (thereby having a pile of benefits that those who don't carry such around … lack) actually have to pay something for the value they get from having more at their fingertips in a scenario
4. The problem of characters trying to lug around the kitchen sink is completely avoided

 

I had never used resource points in a game before … probably because most GM's have been too lazy to build out equipment.  I have to say, I really, really like the equipment point approach and think every heroic game should use resource points.  That said, this only works if a GM isn't slack/lazy when it comes to building things.  i.e. I believe this would fail miserably with a handwavey GM … or a slack GM who lets players build equipment -- as both leave too much open to interpretation and/or misunderstanding.  But it works amazingly well with a GM who is interested in very granular/detailed simulation/creation of objects … and is willing to put in the legwork to get it.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Of course, I also allow one-shot plot items for the characters there & there. The only time someone asked why they can't keep some supervillain gear is when I replied, "For game balance." It was enough and hasn't been brought up in a long, long time.

 

I made a character once who was built around that: he was a capable martial artist gun kinda guy, but he kept equipment he collected in a power pool and used it against the enemy.  It was mostly Viper gear (he was a former Viper agent who turned on them).  Stuff ran out of charges and he had no way of recharging so he'd ditch it and get something new.

[RDU Neil]

36 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I made a character once who was built around that: he was a capable martial artist gun kinda guy, but he kept equipment he collected in a power pool and used it against the enemy.  It was mostly Viper gear (he was a former Viper agent who turned on them).  Stuff ran out of charges and he had no way of recharging so he'd ditch it and get something new.

 

THis is exactly what I was talking about. The player wanted authority in the game to use ephemera (anything made up by the GM to populate the game world, people, things, equipment, etc.)... to use that ephemera LIKE A POWER. Thus he bought a power with point to simulate this. 

 

Could another player have a martial arts gun kinda guy who tended to pick up left over weapons... sure. When he went to use them with the character, though, that player is entirely dependent on the GM. They didn't pay points to say, "I have that old cesium blaster I grabbed from that space marine"... instead, he has to ask, and negotiate, and the GM has complete fiat on what happens when he tries to use it. 

Points equal player control... player author/director stance. 

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

I totally agree it is an art... but the problem is that the source books don't really do a lot to help someone learn the art of "when do points matter" and there is a lot of conflicting perspectives out there. 

The bigger problem I had with different source books was like you said “understanding that that is the author’s perspective” then meshing multiple books together. I remember having angst because I tried to mix “back in the day” Ninja Hero with Dark Champions and even at the Heroic level each author had different campaign expectatio. How can that be I lamented to myself. Even though I read where you as the GM could change as needed, Aaron Allston was more vivid on that account iirc, I still was at the stage of I must use published cause how dare I change anything thinking. Now? I know better. My brother wondered why (I think it’s a Pick Ax) in one source book has a -1 OCV but other Fantast book doesn’t. My answer was that’s what the author thought and you are free to change it.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Another potential advantage of spells versus mundane items is monsters. If a GM keeps with prebuilt, there are monsters which magic hurts them more or even at all compared to a mundane weapon. Iirc Were Rats have 75% Dmg Red not vs Silver and Magic and I think in the same book Ghosts with Desolid can be harmed by magic as default.

[Cassandra]

As someone who creates character on 250 Points I've been considering this subject quite a bit.  Here are a few thoughts.

 

1.  Many skills like Bugging assume the character has access to equipment to use the skill without paying any points for powers.  And Paramedic doesn't require any special equipment to use.

I think this rule would work for other skills like Security Systems for setting a trap that would at least alert the heroes or villains of an intruder entering an area.   Naturally there would be GM decided skill roll penalties for more difficult situations.

 

2. The Money Perk could be used to provide more conventional equipment like communications equipment and transport for the hero and his team.  Of course anything purchased this way could be negated for free say by a villains systems operation or bureaucratics roll.  ("Sorry, Justice Squad, but your craft if not authorized to land in our country.")

 

3.  Sometimes the game mechanics can take the place for addition equipment or powers.  If a hero is captured the villain can easily "Cover" them with an attack and use a Security System roll to put them in a death trap.  If the hero can't figure out who to defeat the security system they get hit by the villains attack.