shinrin

Re: Spells as Skills

Originally posted by Photon1966

I accomplish this by first making it an Int or Pre roll with no modifier to the roll (-0). Then I allow some of the limits to be bought off with iether the increase skill penalty rule or the increased END rule to allow flexibility

Increased Skill penalty rule? Are you talking about the Power Limitation: Requires a Skill Roll? If so, a what level does the penalty to the skill roll begin (-1 per 20 Active points which is a -1/4 Limitation or -1 per 10 Active points which is a -1/2 Limitation)? Or do you require that the Limitation that is "bought off" be replaced with the Requires Skill Roll Limitation of equal value?

Hey Shrike, are you in competition with someone to be a Quadruple Millenial Master?

Originally posted by Storn

This sorta falls under the fantasy catagory. This is a cover sketch for HInterwelt Games's upcoming PDF Future Skien... barbarian tribes fighting Giant Robots of the Machine Lords in a dark future.....mmmmm....pulpy!

Way cool! But why is the drawing on an orange background? Makes it kind of hard to see the drawing.

I noticed a familiar theme to a previous drawing you posted. That being the head of a stone statue jutting out from the sand. The previous drawing you posted was that of the Purple Dragon Knight. Both statues are different but both seem to have Asian Indian influence in their design.

Originally posted by Monolith

You take into account the STR Minimum and any additional STR you use. So if you are using a weapon which requires 15 STR it costs you 3 END to use it. If you use it with your 20 STR it costs you 4 END per strike.

Thanks Monolith! In the case of "odd numbered" STR, like say for example, a weapon that has a STR Min of 8, the END Cost would be 1 and then for every 5 STR above that used for extra damage (STR 13) it costs 2 END? So even if a weapon requires an additional 6.25 STR (because of built in Advantages to the weapon) for additional damage, the END cost is based on every 5 STR increment, right?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

So if a character has 9/9 combat luck (awfully high, in my view), and wears 8 DEF Plate Mail, he loses 4 Combat Luck and ends up with 13 DEF. Your dwarf would have 6 DEF, since half the armor bonus equals the combat luck. If he wears lighter armor (say 4 DEF), he gets 1 point of combat luck remaining, for 5 DEF in total, so he still benefits from somewhat heavier armor.

 

Oh, he may whine a bit about the loss in vaue of his combat luck, but the first time he's attacked with no armor, he'll remember why he paid those CP's!

It seems to me that your suggestion would penalize my player for the points he spent on Combat Luck. Using your system, he loses any advantage to Combat Luck because he is wearing 6 DEF armor. And that would be a waste of his points and not very fair to him. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate making a suggestion, but I don't think it would help in my situation.

I'm sure the first time he gets captured and has his armor taken away from him, he is going to appreciate the value of Combat Luck even more. In this type of situation, this Talent will shine brightly.

Originally posted by Rick

Just as a side note I dig the Inkyo Avatar Shinrin.

Thanks. My hat is off to the original artist whoever he (or she) may be.

Originally posted by Demonsong

It may seem a little harsh, but I do not allow any armor to stack in my Fantasy Hero Game at all! In cases of double armor like Chain Def: 6 and then a mage armor spell of some kind say Def: 10, you only get one, player’s choice. (I have to have a player pick the lowest) It has worked out really well so far. Then again I have some great players who are there for the fun and not just to power game

I seem to recall that Defenses weren't supposed to stack in previous editions of HERO System or maybe it was in a previous edition of Fantasy Hero. But I haven't been able to find such a rule anywhere. But I can see where endless stacking would lead to Near Invulnerable characters.

In the example of the dwarf fighter player that started this thread, he may be pretty tough when it comes to physical damage but against other types of attacks, not so much. He fell victim to a Continuous CON Drain. Not having any Power Defense really hurt him. He is at -5 CON and the Recovery Rate is at 5pts/Week. There are 2 more players joining the game and I think one of them is planning on playing a priest type character, so I expect he will have some healing spells that should heal up that CON drain a little.

I'm not too worried about Power Gaming from these players as they are all new to the HERO System. Even though the characters were 75 Base pts with +75pts in Disads, they both made characters around 138pts. Most experienced HERO players would have maxed out the points at 150.

Re: Re: Combat Reflexes and Armor

Originally posted by Galadorn

 

Game balance is the GM's responsibility. But, I would find the rationale of "suddenly you get unlucky because you're wearing heavy armor" line, a bit tedious. Of course this would depend heavily upon what rationale the character has for his combat luck - a good reflexes rationale would make loosing combat luck in heavy armor, appropriate. A divine intervention, or psychokenetic rationale would not allow taking away combat luck, in my book.

You have a point there. The way the Talent is written in the FRed is that it has a -1/2 Limitation as Luck-based.

I guess I'll just make it a Ground Rule to limit it's purchase instead of doing it through game mechanics.

Thanks

I'm running a FH game where I have a player who is a dwarf fighter who wears a full suit of Banded Mail (6 DEF) and who has 1 Level of Combat Luck which gives him an additional 3 DEF which is Hardened. Does this seem balanced? He has been hard to hurt in combat unless I roll really high on the damage dice and a good hit location like Stomach or Vitals.

I'm planning on making a House Rule of no more than 1 Level of Combat Luck as long as the total DEF in addition to Armor worn doesn't exceed 9 DEF. So a character who doesn't wear armor could have 3 Levels of Combat Luck. But what is to logically stop such a character from putting on armor after he buys 3 Levels of Combat Luck? To solve this I was thinking of requiring a Limitation on Combat Luck such as: Restricted By Armor, No More Than 9 DEF Total (-1/4)? Possibly reflecting that armor restricts the wearer's movement and reflexes?

When assessing END Cost for using weapons in melee, do you take into account the weapon's STR Min in addition to any extra STR used to increase damage? Or only just the extra STR used for extra damage?

Also, is there an END cost for using a Crossbow? It doesn't make sense to spend END firing the crossbow, but maybe for reloading it, since you are exerting STR recocking the bow string?

If this is a character in an anime type game, where is the obligatory 10"+ of Leaping Super power?? Don't ALL anime characters jump around from roof-top to roof-top?

I'm just joking with you, but I remember a HERO game I played many years ago which was Anime in flavor in which it was a campaign requirement to purchase a minimum of 5" of Superleap (now renamed Leaping in 5th Edition).

Ah the memories...

I've burned selected tracks from various soundtracks onto CDs to make "Fantasy Game Music Mixes" I've used LOTR, Record of the Lodoss Wars, Giant Robo, Alien 3, Dead Can Dance, Gladiator and even a Batman Beyond soundtrack CD I found.

I picked up the LOTR: Return of the King soundtrack (haven't seen the movie yet...) and it is good. Definitely some tracks I want to use during our next fantasy game session.

I just picked up the Blackadder DVD Box set. I never got a chance to see the entire series, so now is my chance.

Another bad Sword-n-Sorcery movie is Sword and the Sorceror. I remember this movie fondly in my youth back in the 80's and thought it was good at the time. In a fit of nostalgia I bought the movie on DVD and haven't forgiven myself since....

Originally posted by Markdoc

>>> However, I allow those characters that have the skill "Inventor (spell research)" to spend EP's and increase the effect or create new variations of known spells. <<<

 

Since the players don't pay Eps to start with, how do you handle this?

 

Cheers, Mark

I think there are two schools of thought on this right now:

1) Create a new spell with the changes to the original spell and just make up a new Skill for the new spell. This is the cheaper route.

2) Figure the difference between the Real Cost of the old spell and the new spell and charge the difference in XP.

I would rule that a PC should not make too many changes with one Inventor (Spell Research) roll. I would say he could make up to one 5 or 10 Active points worth of changes per point he makes the Skill Roll by. The skill roll could be modified for using a appropriate setting like a wizards laboratory, having access to grimoires, spending money on research materials, extra time spent researching. Of course the roll could be negatively impacted for lack of these resources.

Re: Re: My bad

Originally posted by trechriron

Now that makes perfect sense.

 

I get what you were saying now. That is hilarious, a simple word taking that whole thing out of context. OK, where’s my ESP when I need it? I think I dropped it over here somewhere…

 

I apologize if the post was a bit excessive. I guess I am suffering from a sort of post traumatic stress disorder relating to a couple past GMs who near drove me insane with this ideology. I hope I did not offend you as that was not my intent.

 

Ciao for now,

No worries. I knew something was up once I started seeing what response I was getting to my post. Your original reply really put the spotlight on the word "arbitrary" and made me go straight to my dictionary. They do say that English is one of the more complicated languages these days...

My bad

Originally posted by trechriron

I respectfully disagree with this outlook.

 

Being creative, inventive, and improvising are all great hallmarks of a good GM. Being arbitrary will never be an appreciative quality of a GM. Deciding if a certain disad or even a combination of disads applies to your game is not being arbitrary. Leveraging consequences against a character for having a disad is not being arbitrary if the player knows ahead of time that taking these particular disads could result in them.

Okay, I confused the meaning of the word "arbitrary" with "arbitrate". I looked up the former in the dictionary and it does have a negative definition.

Originally posted by Galadorn

Tripe, rationalization, pure bunk. This is the way the game system works, if you don't like it make changes to the game system, but arbitrariness is not called for. If you can't figure out the subtle differences between disadvantages, that's your problem - not your players.

Being arbitrary is what a GM does in any game. He controls what is allowed or isn't allowed in a game. Players can make bad choices and any GM should let them know what may become of it. Assuming the player we are all talking about is experienced in HERO, he should already know the consequences of his Disads, but I get the feeling this is a new player, otherwise Alcamtar wouldn't have asked the opinion of the community about taking these Disads. No new player wants to be "ambushed" by an uncaring GM who exploits a Disad if that player had no clue as to the severity of the outcome. I'm saying a GM should discuss any Disads with players, because sometimes they take Disads thinking that a GM isn't going to call it up during a game. Then the player gets indignant when it comes up and things go badly. "Well, geez, if I had known it was going to be that bad, I wouldn't have taken that combination of Disads. Why didn't you say anything?"

Originally posted by Farkling

How is this malicious manipulation? The character has taken almost 75% of his Disad points in this category. It should be a major story focus for him, and come up often.

 

Those were ideas...yes, used all in one blast at once it is malicious manipulation onto the GM railroad.

I agree with Farkling on this. In the end it is the GM's duty to point out to the Player what may be in store for the PC who takes these Disads in this manner. If the Player doesn't change his mind, or make some changes, then he was warned of the consequences and is now at the mercy of a GM's plotline.

The great thing about Disads is that over time they can be bought off with good reason. If the GM has constructed a great story around the PC's Disads and if the PC really likes good roleplaying, maybe in the course of the story, the PC learns that maybe not all orcs are bad and not subject to his rage. If his parents were killed before his eyes as an infant, as one poster suggested as a possible motive for his rage, he may come to realize that only those orcs who did the actual killing are to blame and not the entire race. As he comes to self realizations, he may change his ways and buy off the Disads. And the player SHOULD roleplay this out.

Re: Hatred + Enraged

Originally posted by Alcamtar

I have a player who is proposing (for his PC):

I'm looking for opinions. He's getting 55 points for this, and it all seems to result in "fighting orcs." Also, with this many points, I'm gonna have to stick orcs into virtually every session!

Is the character PC a Dwarf? Those Disads might be appropriate for a dwarf, but even so, it seems a little one dimensional and doesn't promote too much character depth or roleplaying. And unless orcs are going to be a common occurance in your game, (which by the nature of his Hunted, they may be), I would reduce the value of the Disads. It seems the player has chosen these Disads to generate nothing but combat with orcs and to justify future XP expenditures for combat skills because he is honing them constantly against a non-stop parade of orc fighting.

Of course you could allow him these Disads and really use it against him as is the perogative of a GM. That Hunted of his is going to make his life hell and will wreak havoc on the character's reputation when lets say the village he is travelling through gets attacked by orcs looking for him. The PC and his friends defeat the orcs and then they subsequently leave the area. Of course, the dead orcs' buddies may attack the village later in revenge for them aiding or rewarding the PC and his friends. So everywhere the PC goes, villages and towns are subsequently attacked after they leave and this will get around and soon nobody will want the PC coming into their town for fear of retribution.

The Enraged will make it difficult for the PC to leave combat if the combat somehow goes badly for the PC. After a while, the orcs are going to catch on that the PC has an insatiable battle lust for orcs and could set up a trap and use that to their advantage by spreading a rumor of where some orcs can be found nearby. His Hatred Disad will most likely send him looking for the orcs and they will have plenty of time to set up an ambush and have the advantage.

Re: Re: Spell Skills

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Just make the spell, and buy a new skill with the variant. Youre only paying 3 points for it, so the player cant complain too much.

Hmmm. I could see that if the player was adding on a new Advantage, but it would seem redundant if in fact all the player wanted to do was add onto the base power. For example, lets say that the player had a Fireball Skill and the spell was written up as a 6d6 EB AOE 3" Radius (+1) with the usual suspects of standard fantasy spell Limitations (Gestures, Incantations, Expendable Focus etc.,). Later, the player wants to spend some XP and only wants to add +2d6 to the spell. To buy a new skill for the new 8d6 Fireball skill and still have a 6d6 Fireball skill just seems redundant when both are fundamentally the same spell. The player would probably never use the skill for the lesser Active Point spell ever again and would pretty much kiss those 3+ points goodbye. Now, if the player added on Armor Piercing, Autofire or Penetrating etc., the new spell would be a different spell altogether with a different function. The player may still never use the older Fireball Skill (unless he was hurting for END during a combat), in lieu of the newer improved Fireball skill.

I think it would be better if somehow the player could just enchance the existing spell skill without doing a whole new skill. There may be circumstances that would warrant a whole new skill and still keeping and using the old one. Maybe my example of a Fireball skill is too narrow-minded. Is there a bigger picture that is escaping me?

In the Fantasy Hero rulebook, there is a section that discusses using a Spell Skill system. Instead of the PC paying for points in the actual spell, he actually buys a Skill with the spell instead. Of course this assumes that the GM has a bunch of spells already worked out or he can use spells in the FH Grimoire.

I kind of like this method of having PC spellcasters buy spells using a skill, like Fireball Skill etc.,

The only problem I see is if after a while the PC spellcaster gains some XP and wants to make changes to the actual spell, how would a GM handle that, since the only points the PC spellcaster actually spent is points in a Skill for the original spell?

Should the GM just charge the difference between the Real Cost of the original spell and the new Real Cost of the improved spell? Of couse, the PC would probably have to make some Spell Research rolls and spend some gold in materials etc., to justify the actual change in the spell.

What does the community think?

Hahahaha!

Originally posted by Monolith

Forgotten Realms...

• Got your Norsemen, Mongals, Arabs, Pirates, and native savages? Check, check, check, check, and check.

• Got your generic medieval kingdoms, good, evil and disfunctionally neutral? Check, check, and check.

• Got your completely impossible haven in the evil kingdom? Check.

• Got your impossible magic locations, super cooled glaciers, ultra high mountains, and really deep canyons? Check, check check.

• Got your good demi-human kingdoms, one each for Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits oops I mean "Halflings?" Check, check, check.

• Got your rough territory filled with evil demi-human tribes? Goblins, Orcs and Trolls. Check, check, check.

• Got your ancient fallen empire to provide magic items and mysteries. Check

Thank you so much. I needed a good laugh today.

Gladius

I just picked up the X-Box game, Gladius, which is a game of gladatorial combat. The setting is a fantasy-world stylized after the Roman Empire known as Imperia and the German lands known as Nordagh. Both countries used to be at war with each other, but after a prolonged conflict and bloodshed, the war brought forth an evil Dark God. The Dark God was beat down by a host of Valkries and a temple contsructed over it's body to safeguard against it's return. Now Imperia and Nordagh have formed an uneasy peace and settle their disputes with gladatorial games. The game is part RPG and part combat game. The dialogues between the characters at some points can be annoying and I wish there was an option to turn it off.

I thought this would make an interesting fantasy setting as it does have it's share of fantasy creatures like Satyrs, Minotaurs, Cyclops, Undead, etc., which you can fight against in the games. You can also fight against traditional gladatorial units like Centurions, Murmillo, Samnites and Secutors.

It's a very interesting game, if a bit frustrating at times, but I'm getting a handle on it and i picked up a Strategy Guide to help me out. The Strategy guide has some really cool artwork in it as well. If you go to LucasArts website at www.gladius.com, there is some very cool concept art there for inspiration to run a game in this setting.

If your game has deadly political intrique, see about renting the "I, Claudius" mini-series. I've seen it advertised in a Public-Television Gift Catalog for sale on VHS. I'm sure it exists somewhere on DVD.