Source and rule book serious weakness

[JohnBear]

Hi Folks,

 

I've been running a fantasy hero game for the past few years (may run a mechwarrior variant next)  and I''ve noticed what I consider to be a serious lack in the hero books. And this applies to every genre.

 

Specifically character advancement. Yes a trip through the bestiary or any book shows characters at various point levels. but actually advancing characters is another story entirely. Sure, I can look up a lich (powerful undead wizard - 900 points Turakian Age page 302) but what would a normal human fighter look like at an equivalent point value within the "canon"? For example I've got human normal fighters running around with CSLs of +20. And DCVs even higher. There's not a critter in any of the books that could even touch my players.

 

Now I can obviously adjust things (and have) so it's all good, and we're having fun. But that's not the point.

Excluding characters that have to put all their XP into "spells" where would fighters and thieves put their experience? Especially since in a heroic game equipment and magic items don't cost character points.

 

We're currently using 5th ed, but the 6th ed books have the same limitation.

 

It's as if the game is designed for the characters to remain relatively static. Am I just seeing things? Or is this (as I suspect) the legacy of the "superhero genre" origins of the system.

 

JohnBear

 

 

 

 

[Chris Goodwin]

15 minutes ago, JohnBear said:

Excluding characters that have to put all their XP into "spells" where would fighters and thieves put their experience? Especially since in a heroic game equipment and magic items don't cost character points.

 

Buying up their stats, including DEX, EGO, PD, ED, Body, Stun, END.  Increasing their Skill values.  Increasing their other stats (STR, INT, PRE, etc.).  Maybe adding additional Talents, Powers that reflect their advancement, etc.  Maybe someone wants a new magic item?  They can spend their points on that.  Maybe someone wants a stronghold (a Base).  

 

Incidentally, what point level are you starting them at, and how much XP do you award?  How long has the campaign been going?  

[KX_Mushashi]

I don't think this is limited to Hero System but is something that is wider spread to other systems that don't have character levels.  Shadowrun is another example that comes to my mind.  DnD steps through a couple of different sub genres as the characters level up and having character levels does make that a bit easier.  In Hero and other sanslevel games it is a bit harder to compare power levels since there are different things to spend points on and some of them are not always helpful in every situation.  A character that buys out a tricked out sword will almost always be able to use that sword, but a character that buys a castle can't really take it with them...most of the time.

[JohnBear]

This was just a general observation on what I've seen in the books and what I was wrestling with. But it is something that makes me hesitant to play a fantasy hero game again. mixing major powers like spells purchased with XP and equip is a royal PITA. We even started using resource points to help in that regard. Works OK and it's an interesting tactical variant, not my fav.

 

And in a heroic game you're not spending xp on gear. That's cash and loot.

 

Game's been going for a few years now so the points are quite high (500cp + 175 disads). And I did a fair amount of tweaking to FH so that they're still using their XP to approx the D&D versions of the characters. So that in and of itself isn't an issue.

 

The characters have been buying stats, skill, perks, talents and powers (story permitting). Setting up a martial block on a trigger is EXPENSIVE . But since I did use that one against them (with another linked triggered attack as a follow up) it was an obvious power for some of them to save up for.

 

As for awards, typical session has characters getting 1-5 with major awards for story plotlines (xp and disads).\

 

JB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah this is less a flaw with the rules than a feature of the system.  In a leveling game, its clear what comes next and how to build up some character super easy: everyone gets x, y, and z no matter who they are in this level.

 

Hero does things way more freely and openly and it takes some experience playing to get a feel for how to advance characters.  You can literally get anything you want in the limits of the campaign and GM's approval.  Your wizard wants to learn to fight with a sword?  OK.  Your Batman character now needs to learn a new language?  Got it.  Your star fighter pilot works on his medical training?  OK.  Its up to you.  Sometimes the open nature and possibilities can be a little paralyzing and daunting.

 

I saw that in my campaigns, some characters people really didn't seem to know what to do with experience, so they just sat on it or bought little stuff aimlessly.  Others were good about writing down notes: I want this next.

 

Because of that, I'm working out a way for my Fantasy Hero setting to provide suggested "blocs" or advancement sets that people can look at moving into with experience, and giving out experience in chunks rather than a constant drizzle.

[massey]

I think you've got to keep in mind that by the time your characters have that many combat levels, they're the D&D equivalent of probably 20th level.  They should be able to tear through all the monsters in the book.

 

There are a few ways to control their character progression, depending on who you ask.

 

--Cap the amount of combat skill levels (or other abilities) that the characters can have.  Make them spend their points on something else.  If the best swordsman in the world has +10 levels with his sword, then no, the player can't have +12.  Best he can ever get is +10, and maybe he needs GM permission to go past +6.  Like he can't spend his first 30 XP to go to +10, he's got to bulk out his other stats, and buy KS: Swordsmanship School or something (possibly roleplay out some exceptional training) before he can do that.

 

--Encourage people to branch out beyond their D&D character classes.  Why be a simple fighter when you can be a sword-mage?  Maybe the fighter has an intelligent animal companion (like a talking horse or something).  Or perhaps he's a prince, but he didn't know it before.  All these are great point sinks for characters.  You can steer them towards things that cost a lot of points, and are cool for the character, but don't throw the OCV/DCV system out of whack.

 

--Give some XP as predefined bonuses.  They complete an adventure where they help the Elf King, instead of getting +15 XP for that story arc, maybe they get 3 XP, plus Contact: Elf King on an 11-, plus they learn an elven protection spell, and they get a magic charm.  A lot of XP in fantasy games could take the form of magic items they find.  This steers the character advancement in a way that you choose.

[KX_Mushashi]

I do also count money spent and loot gained as part of the power level of the character, it is easier to take it away or for them to lose the item and is a littler harder to track.  For one game I was going to run instead of cash I was going to award them with resource points, but that never started up.

[Scott Ruggels]

In another thread, I said that armies and people changes in response to the contact with the enemy.  This was more true of our Fantasy Hero games I ran. The players tended to buy their CSL's up around 6, they would pick up overall levels. I made player mages buy spells as powers, so that sucked up A LOT of points, to gain versatility, and focus against particular foes susceptibilities, and vulnerabilities. But  they would buy lots of skills and knowledges, until they became like experts and fairly focused topics, and for each realm they moved through they would add new skills and knowledges, and occasionally powers. I also allowed  some magic items given to the players to be bought as powers, so they wouldn't lose them when their usual small train of mules was eaten by a dragon and their camping supplies scattered to the four winds.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Also: you don't have to buy spells with xps, that's a choice in campaign build.  There are other approaches such as buying the capacity to cast spells, then buying magic with money.

[TranquiloUno]

2 hours ago, JohnBear said:

Hi Folks,

 

I've been running a fantasy hero game for the past few years (may run a mechwarrior variant next)  and I''ve noticed what I consider to be a serious lack in the hero books. And this applies to every genre.

 

Specifically character advancement. Yes a trip through the bestiary or any book shows characters at various point levels. but actually advancing characters is another story entirely. Sure, I can look up a lich (powerful undead wizard - 900 points Turakian Age page 302) but what would a normal human fighter look like at an equivalent point value within the "canon"? For example I've got human normal fighters running around with CSLs of +20. And DCVs even higher. There's not a critter in any of the books that could even touch my players.

 

Now I can obviously adjust things (and have) so it's all good, and we're having fun. But that's not the point.

Excluding characters that have to put all their XP into "spells" where would fighters and thieves put their experience? Especially since in a heroic game equipment and magic items don't cost character points.

 

We're currently using 5th ed, but the 6th ed books have the same limitation.

 

It's as if the game is designed for the characters to remain relatively static. Am I just seeing things? Or is this (as I suspect) the legacy of the "superhero genre" origins of the system.

  

JohnBear

 

 

 

 

 

The easy way to do this would be campaign maximums of various kinds.

 

I do think the superhero legacy fits in there since (for the most part with plenty of exceptions and special cases and all of that) most heroes are more or less static in the source material (again with exceptions, special cases, and other caveats).

Cyclops has eyebeams, Wolvie has claws, Punisher has guns, and so on.

 

I think this is also emulative of other genre fiction. James Bond rarely picks up entirely new martial arts. Legolas didn't decide he'd be a bit more fun to play with a small VPP for elf-magic tricks. King Arthur doesn't usually decided he needs more points in Bases because Camelot is getting boring.

We can certainly say that maybe Samwise Gamgee leveled up of the course of LOTR, but...he didn't really acquire anything new. Or we can say that Picard\Worf\Kirk go though character growth and change but...did they really "level up"?

 

But then also I think it works in the reverse. The D&D expectation is that folks will improve *dramatically* over time. And part of the reason for that is because the badguys are going to scale up dramatically themselves.

 

That doesn't have to be true in Hero. Aragorn doesn't have to spend XP on CSLs and more stats and more stats and more stats. James Bond doesn't have to pick up some weird OIF Regen and Combat Luck x3 just because he's got points sitting around.

 

Same for the lich stats. Are there even "normal human" fighters at that point level?

 

 

But I do agree that the rules themselves are, as is typical, unhelpful in that regard. "You could do anything you can imagine, maaaaaan!", isn't actually useful guidance for much of anything.

 

I don't have any of the books "running the game" sections memorized but...is there discussion of this anywhere? How\what\why to limit\use\shape advancement over the course of a game?

 

 

[massey]

If I were going to run a fantasy hero game, I'd try and establish some clear character benchmarks for the world, and then make sure I didn't exceed them.  Characters buy up combat skill levels because it makes them more effective.  They don't buy +20 OCV just for the hell of it -- there's no benefit once they're hitting most targets on a 14 or less.  If random orcs are showing up with 8 levels in all combat, the players will respond by buying more.  But let's say that enemies are going to top out at around a 7 OCV/DCV.  Players probably won't go to much more than a 10 total, regardless of any hard limits imposed.  And if you do impose a hard limit, they probably won't feel restricted since they're still able to hit effectively.

 

Aragorn is at the top end of the OCV/DCV paradigm in LOTR.  It doesn't matter what that exact level is, just that Aragorn is there.  Nobody is going to show up and best him in hand to hand skill.  Likewise you won't have players dumping points into tons of damage if you don't have ogres or trolls with 30 Body that you have to slowly hack your way through all the time.

 

Once they're satisfied with their level of combat ability, and they aren't facing the constant "monsters get tougher and hit harder" progression, then they'll be free to expand their characters in other directions.

 

I toyed around with the idea of having wizards who only know like one spell.  What about a necromancer who is a powerful fighter, has an array of henchmen and a gloomy castle, has a magic scepter that lets him bind spirits (mind control vs ghosts), and knows the ancient ritual "Summon Undead Army" (summons 10,000 skeletons at 75 points each, but can only be cast under a full moon with rare components).  In some ways he's more powerful than any D&D wizard, but he's also far more limited.  It's something you wouldn't see in other fantasy games.

 

If you take off the D&D shackles, Hero offers a whole lot of possibilities.

[Christopher]

2 hours ago, JohnBear said:

500cp + 175 disads

Normal Superheroic Characters start at 400 CP.

 

3 hours ago, JohnBear said:

I can look up a lich (powerful undead wizard - 900 points Turakian Age page 302)

900 points is a serious challenge for Superheroic Characters. Most enemies that are intended to challenge Superhero Groups are built on less points.

There might be some realy cost inefficient stuff in there, but this is still a heaping lot of points.

 

Either Tukarian Age is intended to go into Superheroic Powerlevels, or you were never supposed to fight the Lich in a open battle. It sounds more like a "Force of Nature" villain that has to be avoided/worked around/defeated via plotdevices.

 

3 hours ago, JohnBear said:

For example I've got human normal fighters running around with CSLs of +20. And DCVs even higher. There's not a critter in any of the books that could even touch my players. 

Hero is more about total limits then "can buy X". It does not mater if you got the CV's and DC from stat buying, CSL, Martial Arts or any other way - only that you reached the cap is relevant.

 

2 hours ago, JohnBear said:

As for awards, typical session has characters getting 1-5 with major awards for story plotlines (xp and disads).\

1-5 XP per sessions is a ton of XP. Way beyond what you should be handing out.

 

2 hours ago, JohnBear said:

We even started using resource points to help in that regard.

APG I 191 has "Resource Points". they cover more then just equipment. And you can hand out resource points instead of XP, to have more granular rewards.

 

3 hours ago, JohnBear said:

This was just a general observation on what I've seen in the books and what I was wrestling with. But it is something that makes me hesitant to play a fantasy hero game again. mixing major powers like spells purchased with XP and equip is a royal PITA.

Spells in Fantasy are a Problem. However you might have compensated for it by handing out too much XP, rather then looking at how to make it more affordable.

[Chris Goodwin]

What point levels did you start them at?  Fantasy Hero in 5th edition sort of assumes you're going to start them at 150 (75+75), 200 (100+100), or 250 (125+125).  The point levels you're describing come in at around cosmic-level superhero territory; I think we're looking at Superman and Galactus level.  

 

The game also generally assumes the 1-5 XP per session; I've never seen or even heard of large-block XP awards for completing arcs.  

 

If you're starting them at higher points and giving higher XP awards, you are for sure going to see exactly what you describe.  And while I personally tend to not favor Fantasy Hero, or heroic level games in general, with characters with lots of Powers, if you're running a game with high point values you're pretty much going to have to let your players spend points on them.  Fighters with weapon tricks or special attacks?  Wizards with some truly earth-shaking abilities?  Shapeshifting druid-types?  Thieves with stealth-suites (Invisibility, Desolidification, Telekinesis)?  

 

[drunkonduty]

I'll second what Massey and TranquilUno said.

 

It would be good if guidelines like these were made clearer. I'm sure guidelines exist somewhere in the body of work that is the HERO system, all editions. But it'd take a while to find it.

 

Okay, found something. In HERO 5th Ed there's a few paragraphs on it. But no in-depth discussion. (fair enough, it's already a huge book, space is limited, etc.) One can also infer certain things from the guidelines on campaign caps.

 

Clearly, it's one of those things that could do with more space dedicated to it. Half a page on "encourage players to make their character's grow more broad in their skills and areas of expertise, rather than more powerful" would be good. With some detailed examples.

[Brian Stanfield]

If you have Fantasy HERO 6e handy, there are a couple of sections that offer suggestions (very broad suggestions) on these issues:

• p. 108, for several pages, discusses characteristic maxima, ranges, and specific rationales for cultivating certain characteristics in various situations. 
• p. 390, for several pages, discusses character guidelines, effectiveness caps, ranges, and growth, etc.

I assume 5e discusses the same things in roughly the same spots, but I only have 6e handy. It’s not extensive, but it is a handful of pages that summarize much of what has been offered above by everyone else. He layout isn’t always the most friendly, but the information is usually in there somewhere. I’ve toyed with other layouts of information for teaching purposes, but no matter how you do it it still amounts to drinking from the fire hose while simultaneously jumping onto a moving merry-go-round!

 

I hope this helps, at least in terms of explaining where the material is. Whether it’s enough is another issue. 

[Chris Goodwin]

These are my rough opinions and guidelines.  

 

For non-superheroic games

To start with characters equivalent to about a first level D&D basic character (either the original B/X or later BECMI edition games), you could expect to see about 100 total points for Hero editions up through 5th edition revised (5er), or 125 total points in 6th.  (75 base with 25 Disadvantages in first-gen, 50+50 or 75+25 in fourth and fifth, 125 with 25 Matching Complications in 6th.)  

 

First level AD&D (1e or 2e) characters would probably be about 125 total points up through Hero 5er, and probably about 150 total in Hero 6th.  Probably 75+50 or 100+25 in earlier editions, 150 with 25-50 in Matching in 6th.

 

First level D&D (3rd-5th edition) characters would probably come to about 150 total points in Hero 5er and prior, and 175 in Hero 6th.  75+75 or 100+50 in earlier editions, 175 with 50 Matching in 6th.

 

A lot of people have written a lot over the years about advancement; you could probably not go too wrong with about 5-10 Hero XP per *D&D level for lower level play (say, 1st-5th), and 10, 15, 20 or more XP per level for higher level D&D characters.  The games are different, and someone will probably have their own ideas and guidelines, but they probably won't be far off from mine.  

 

Champions

Early edition Champions characters would tend to be around 200 total points, for the equivalent of a beginning superhero (immediately post-origin story) in their first issue; 225-250 points would make them more rounded.  The books made it a point to talk about how different a 200 total point character with 50 points of experience would be from a 250 total point starting character, but they never really went into a lot of detail.  You could look at the original Strike Force book to see the differences between starting player characters in Aaron Allston's campaign and their more experienced counterparts.  Fourth edition set a "standard superhero" at 250, or 100 base with 150 in Disadvantages; earlier editions started with 100 base, with anywhere from 100 to 150 or more points worth of Disadvantages.  (Diminishing returns in 1st-3rd editions meant you took more Disadvantages to make up those points; the sweet spot was 225-250 total, with 100 of that from base points.)  250 never felt like enough to me in 4th edition; there was a lot more to buy, newer Skills and Powers and whatnot, but never enough points to really realize your concept.  Fifth edition put a standard superhero at 350 total points; 200 base with 150 in Disadvantages.  A sixth edition standard superhero is 400; 400 total points with 75 points in Matching Complications.  Fifth and sixth edition totals seem to me to be more in line with Marvel Cinematic Universe characters in their first movies; maybe inexperienced but well rounded and powerful to be sure.  

 

I hope this was helpful, and I'm trying not to editorialize too much.  I've got some strong opinions, as you've no doubt seen.

[drunkonduty]

Clearly I have to write a few more pages for my Fantasy Hero Basic document: a good GMing advice section.

 

Yay! A project.

[megaplayboy]

You could set caps at the beginning and then raise the caps at a steady rate, say +1 to max CV per 50-100 xp, +1 Dc to max damage per 50-100 xp, and so forth. This keeps people from just plowing all their xp into more damage and more CV.  You can also make sure that noncombat skills and interactions are very important in the campaign, and scale those challenges up as well.  So maybe the heroes have to put 10-15xp out of every 50 into noncombat stuff.  

[JohnBear]

Thank you folks. Fwiw, I've already done just about all of the things you've mentioned as part of my campaign design (skill caps, damage caps, stat caps. etc...). And (as megaplayboy suggested) I've already done that too. And will be raising the caps as we go forward (again)

 

And this wasn't so much me looking for ideas (now) as an observation that the books provided very little guidance. It would have been nice if they had showed how the sample characters could have looked when they were going against some of the sample villains.

 

I could write a book on how I've had  to battle and manage my *players* over the fact that too many of them designed (and often keep creating)  superheros in a LOTR or D&D or Turakian Age style world rather than "adventuring" characters who advance and grow. The first game I had a character (a fighter type)  come in with 5 levels of Deadly Blow (in daggers), DEX 20, STR 20, +5DCV, +4 OCV (daggers), +3(HTH), +5DCV (HTH), autofire, autofire skills, 2-weapon fighting, and so on. Without "magic items"! And the spellcasters were just as bad.

 

For reference, in the bestiary, the "Demon Prince of Strength" (a 1300 pt monster) has an OCV/DCV of 11

 

 

And while this forum and the folks here really helped me "tame the beasts" it would've been nice to have some "official" indicators I could have shared with the players.

 

For background several of my players have "RPG related PTSD". Their previous GM took the role that it was GM vs Players and his job was to kill them (his words). My approach is more of a "computer simulation". You are doing things in the world and the world reacts, with each NPC essentially living their own lives and pursuing their own goals.  If the players interfere...well that's what hunteds are for. But this has definitely colored their gaming perspective. It's been slooooowly changing.

 

This thread should be stickied somewhere as it greatly summarized many awesome ideas that are scattered around the forums.

 

Thanks again.

 

JB

 

 

[JohnBear]

2 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

These are my rough opinions and guidelines.  

 

 

 

I hope this was helpful, and I'm trying not to editorialize too much.  I've got some strong opinions, as you've no doubt seen.

 

 weak opinions aren't worth mentioning 

[TranquiloUno]

On 3/4/2019 at 5:02 PM, JohnBear said:

 

Game's been going for a few years now so the points are quite high (500cp + 175 disads). And I did a fair amount of tweaking to FH so that they're still using their XP to approx the D&D versions of the characters. So that in and of itself isn't an issue.

 

 

Tangential to YOUR point I do wonder if in fact this isn't the issue.

 

Class\level progressions are so darned standardized in the gaming mindset. Power progression, enemy progression, spell progress, MORE AND BETTER MAGICAL ITEMS, all of that.

Most other games (CoC, WW, SR GURPS) revolve around pre-provided lists of advancement so that even though you aren't improving everything all over all the time (like the archetypal D&D standard) you are only improving discreet and pre-defined aspects of existing rules. 

So where you are still "spending XP" like you do in Hero the things you spend it on are....kinda prebalanced and limited and the XP progressions themselves usually limit things.

 

In Hero I can buy +1 OCV ("to-hit") for 2pts. And then another for 2pts. And then still another for 2pts.

 

In WW or SR (the older editions which I'm familiar with) the XP costs scale as the thing being improved scales. So my guy with the +3 OCV (equivalent) would pay 4pts for his +4, then 5pts for his +5, and so on and I don't know why I'm explaining this really, we're all gamers here and I'm sure the point I'm making is evident already, but...because of that increasing cost (and often a top level cap as well) XP spend balancing isn't quite the chore it can become in Hero. 

 

In Vampire (for example) I can boost my weak skills and stats for cheap, but if I want to continue to pump my already top-line combat stuff I'll reach diminishing returns and start to incur some serious opportunity costs. Should I leave my weak spots unprotected so I can continue to pump my main ability for marginal increases in utility? Or should I shore up weak spots because my XP dollar goes farther?

 

Hero doesn't (quite) have that same dilemma.

 

But, wait, then, the other thing: The ideas of what progression means are all built in to those rules\settings.

 

Hero doesn't have that..."problem".

 

Like most stuff in Hero the GM\players get to do all that work and I think there's a lot of emphasis (for reasonable reasons) on initial setup, initial concept, and, of course, CHARACTER CREATION, and then also, how you want to play the game (Wounding? Impairing? Hit Locs?) and so on.

 

Which is fine. And good. And very Hero-ey.

 

But it kinda leaves that whole entire "What happens after chargen\session1" stuff...well...also up to the GM\players also to decide and that's something that...I mean, really...do most games ever touch on this? 

 

Like D&D..you fight things, you get stuff, you level up, WIN!!! That's the game!!!!

White Wolf stuff is the same, you make your tragic vampire, you do your tragic vampire stuff, you get XP!

 

There's no real discussion in most games about how the progression works out, or is supposed to work out, or, generally, any end-state at all (hitting 20th level in D&D maybe) and since the "how should stuff progress?" question is handled by the rules, in an indirect way (the answer to the question: How does it progress? Being: Well instead let me just tell you what\how you can spend XP on....) then...nobody ever has to address it.

 

Hero often seems oriented around the idea that, "You can make ANYthing!", and spends all it's time on making the thing, rather than what happens after ("Whatever you want, maaaan!"). 

 

 

 

[TranquiloUno]

Another thing I think might be worth mentioning is that, particularly in comparison to that lumbering behemoth D&D, in Hero you can directly control the levers of power.

 

In D&D when you level up you get discreet things. Which are all probably good and happy and fun, but the main thing is you don't choose them.

 

When my Wizard hits level 2 I get more spells. In Hero when I get more XP...do I even need more spells? Do I want them?

Maybe I should just buff up my Power Bolt 'o Doom more and put more in +OCV with Power Bolt instead of concocting another spell that's...not really my thing ("Prismatic Spray or Entangle? Hmm...but I'm a Fire Mage...."). 

In D&D I don't have that option, so I don't think about it, so the game never has to deal with it. 

Happily....Hero ain't like that.  

But instead I gotta deal with figuring out where the game is headed in addition to figuring out what game I wanna run (AND actually running the game too).

 

Similarly some things get better for free as you go (in D&D again, but...I do think it's the standard against all others are measured). 

My Fighter doesn't need to decide if he needs more to-hit or more hit points. He gets both. 

My Wizard doesn't need to decide if I should bump Magic Missile damage or buy another spell. He gets both.

 

So the progressions in other games are both usually limited by the pre-built progression mechanics (increasing costs for increasingly increased abilities) and also by lack of access to the stuff you might actually want to buff up.

 

But mostly I don't think it's really something a lot of games deal with well or spend a lot of time on.

 

D&D, again, in some editions, rapidly becomes nearly unplayable at higher and higher power levels as the spells and items accumulate, but that often seems to be more accepted as a feature rather than a bug.

 

 

 

 

[drunkonduty]

1 hour ago, TranquiloUno said:

D&D, again, in some editions, rapidly becomes nearly unplayable at higher and higher power levels as the spells and items accumulate, but that often seems to be more accepted as a feature rather than a bug.

 

Oh god, don't remind me.

 

I'm running two(!) high level Pathfinder games, one with 14th level characters, one with 10th level+2 Mythic tiers characters.

It's a fricking nightmare.

[TranquiloUno]

1 hour ago, drunkonduty said:

 

Oh god, don't remind me.

 

I'm running two(!) high level Pathfinder games, one with 14th level characters, one with 10th level+2 Mythic tiers characters.

It's a fricking nightmare.

 

My condolences to you, sir! ;D

 

Sometimes I read PF build op threads until my eyes glaze over (about a page) just to get a sense of the madness that is Pathfinder plus splats and whatever else they have (I've somehow managed to dodge actually playing that one myself). A lot of the times it reads like Palladium\Rifts material to me with all the prestige classes this and feat chains that and classes I've never heard of (Eidolon?). I think it's really pretty cool in an inapproachable and I-never-wanna-play-that-one way. ;D

 

Funny, of course, as it relates to the thread topic.

D&D and it's sibling-descendants are practically THE model for how all TTRPG characters should grow and mature in a game (by virtue of existing first) and they've had years and years  and edition after edition to do things with them (remember how AD&D had a second mini-game within when you hit higher levels and started attracting followers and such?) and yet....even the granddaddy of standardized, "balanced", game-integrated character progression....still kinda sucks at dealing with the cumulative effects of character progression on the base game. 

 

 

[drunkonduty]

Yeah, it's getting to Rifts level stupid in terms of all the options.

 

Officially I say "Just Core rules," but I inevitably slip.

 

I slipped a lot in the case of the Mythic rules. But I had no choice with that one. You see that's the game I play with my wife. (She's the only player, I GM.) She'd bought the mythic rule book and she really wanted to use it... What's a husband to do?