Alcamtar

Re: How to do Priests use magic??? I tried that once. Sounds good in theory but (for the GM) is a lot of work in practice. You end up having to pay a lot of attention to that one character, almost co-playing it in a way, and you also end up having to use the powers in a way that is acceptable and beneficial to the player. He's the one who paid the points for it after all, so he should recieve appropriate benefit and "coolness factor". I found that I kept forgetting to use the power. Also, being in GM mode I was probably too restrained and "subtle" in how I used it. Players are frequently going over-the-top and doing things that I would not consider entirely genre-appropriate or normal. I tended to stay within my concept of things and as a result the character felt underplayed, at least in comparison to the others. Also players tend to be very creative in knocking down obstacles the GM is trying hard to throw at them... wtih a cosmic VPP controlled by an omniscient "god" it is easy to come up with just the right solution to just about any problem, which means the GM is constantly defeating himself... and that's just weird, like playing solitaire while the player looks on. Additionally, being essentially a cosmic VPP it was a lot of work to create powers on the fly while GMing at the same time. I found I tended to use raw effects without advantages or limitations just to keep things manageable, which made things less interesting. Ultimately I decided it was much easier (and more balanced) just to let the player think up the miracles and veto them if inappropriate. You can still say they are "from God" and not under the character's control if that's the concept.

Re: Rolemaster Shadow World Conversion Keep in mind these are 1st Ed FH stats. The Lords of Orhan and the Navigators have complete writeups (with magic items!), but the monster conversions are just summaries. The information below is all the info provided. I do not have RM so I don't know what 'shards' are, and they are not described in the conversion guide, so you'll have to make sense of this yourself. LESSER SHARDS STR 20 DEX 33 CON 23 BODY 23 PRE 35 tPD 10 rPD 2 tED 6 rED 1 SPD 6 REC 18 STUN 90 OCV 13 DCV 11 DAM 2d6K MOVE 100" NOTES - Strong Venom - Half CV in daylight - Must make half a move before it attacks - Attacks draw 2 charges at a time from a reserve of 50 that recharges 3/hr - Running is brought to 1/4 normal endurance GREATER SHARDS STR 30 DEX 33 CON 30 BODY 30 PRE 45 tPD 16 rPD 4 tED 8 rED 2 SPD 6 REC 24 STUN 120 OCV 15 DCV 11 DAM 3d6K MOVE 100" NOTES - Strong Venom - Half CV in daylight - Attacks draw 2 charges at a time from a reserve of 50 that recharges 3/hr - May project a 'lightbolt' from its eyes that does 8d6 of Blast damage - Running is brought to 1/4 normal endurance CONVERTING FROM 1E TO 5E: - 'Blast' is the same 'Energy Blast' - 'Reduced Endurance x1/4' no longer exists, I'd just use 'Reduced Endurance: No END' instead I no longer have the 1st ed Bestiary and do not recall precisely how 'strong venom' is defined. IIRC the rankings were: - Weak Venom: 1d6 BODY, gradual effect 1 hour - Strong Venom: 2d6 BODY, gradual effect 5 minutes - Lethal Venom: 3d6 BODY, gradual effect 1 minute - Horrid Monster Venom: 4d6 BODY, gradual effect 1 turn I'd suggest: STRONG VENOM: 2d6 RKA, NND Does BODY, No Range, Gradual Effect 5 minutes, Doesn't affect target unless simultaneous HKA does BODY. Defense is appropriate immunity, unusual metabolism, or suitable antidote.

Re: Rolemaster Shadow World Conversion I have a copy of the original conversion guide with FH stats.

When planning a Fantasy Hero campaign, how much prep work do you put in? The last two FH campaigns I ran, I spent many hours designing the world, magic system, limits (CV, DCV, etc), economics, races, etc. -- then found it was just taking too long and started the campaign before I was finished. In both cases we ran through character creation before I had everything 100% worked out, I ended up making on-the-fly allowances and rulings that I later regretted, and both campaigns were canceled after a while. In the last one I told the players what happened and we agreed to restart after I had some more time to put into it. Now after more than a month of careful planning and design, it's time to get the show on the road and I'm STILL not done. This time I planned for unreadiness, so hopefully by the time we need those details I'll have had time to prep them, but still... this is very frustrating. Part of the problem is that I have a definite vision for the campaign, but if I just turn the players loose they'll create characters that are a poor fit. The rules are so wide open the GM needs to have a strong vision and exercise editorial privilege to give it a unified look and feel. (Many games are prepackaged and require no tweaking or even real vision, the GM can cut straight to play and the campaign assembles itself.) I think I spend at least half my planning time here. The other half of the problem may be that I extensively customize the game. I'm used to designing worlds and cosmologies and stuff, but Hero allows a much greater degree of flexibility, and I also have to design the rules: magic system, races, packages, martial arts. There are also many options that are simply not available in other games like sectional armor or variant rules. Reading books like FH or TUS makes it worse because they present so many options that I never even considered, but find it really fits my concept. So then I'm back updating everything. It's incredibly cool to be able to customize everything, and that's really the whole point -- but it never seems to end. And after weeks of tweaking, just when I think I'm done I realize I still have to prep for actual play: plan adventures, create NPCs, etc. I'm getting kind of burned out before play even begins. So this is sort of a plea for advice on how to keep my sanity and make this whole mess practical. How do YOU do it? To break this down into a set of specific questions: 1. How much time do you put into prepping a campaign? Not a one-off adventure but a long-term open-ended campaign? 2. What aspects do you plan in advance, and what do you define as-needed during play? How has this worked, and has it come back and bit you later? 3. Do you extensively customize the game, or do you mostly just use the material from Fantasy Hero, Grimoire, etc (or maybe from someone's website) and go with it? 4. Are you very careful about setting and genre fidelity, or do you pretty much allow players to design whatever characters they want?

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies Some of these seemed kind of vague and several posters offered interesting clarifications, that sometimes seemed to break the mold. So I tried to think of examples for each one. Not sure if this is useful or not but it's interesting. AUTHORITY 1) GM Example: "My way or the highway." Example: The GM is first among equals and makes the final decision only after everyone has said their peace. The decision is final once made. Example: The GM is the final authority, but may not contradict a previous ruling. 2) Group Example: The Group is the final authority but voluntarily delegates to the GM so long as the GM's rulings are fair and not abusive. If a ruling is seen as abusive or unfair the group may override the GM with a vote. 3) Rules Example: The rules are the final authority and are binding on both GM and players. Official rulings are errata are also binding on all. Outside of official rules the GM has freedom, but if a new official ruling is made the GM must abide with it thenceforth. Example: The GM is the final authority until a character is threatened with death or a violation of the player's concept. Players have veto power over permanent changes to their characters. But if the group agrees by vote that the player did it to himself or had it coming, the player cannot veto changes. Example: The GM may make decisions for dramatic purposes as long as the reason is revealed within a reasonable period of time. Example: The GM and players negotiate on rulings, with the GM acting as arbiter, and group consensus determining when a resolution is fair. Example: The GM is the final authority but may only violate the rules-as-written with player permission. INTERPRETATION 1) Closed Clarification: If the rules do not allow something, it is illegal by default. Example: All stop-sign powers are off-limits. Example: Experience points cannot be spent without GM permission and in-game justification. 2) Open Clarification: If the rules do not disallow something, it is legal by default. Example: All stop-sign powers are allowed. Example: Players can buy any attack powers they want (if they have enough points). Example: Experience points may be spent freely as desired. 3) Guideline Example: Combat situations are Closed, while non-combat is Open. Example: A house rules document specifies minimum and maximum DC. Players can expect that any DC within that range is allowed, but should expect that anything outside that range is disallowed pending specific permission. GROUP DYNAMIC 1) Membership 2) Public 3) Tournament Rules Example: The group is open among a certain circle of friends, and closed outside that circle. New players are accepted into the circle by consensus after playing a few games. Example: The group is public up to a specified minimum, any players beyond that require permission. Example: First come first served, until the table is full. AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION TIMING 1) Rigid Example: The GM writes an exhaustive house rules document in advance, based on past experience. The document is always used in preference to a new ruling. If a new rule must be made on the fly it is added to the document for future reference. 2) Freeform Example: House rules and rulings are never written down. All rulings are on-the-fly and need not be consistent with past rulings. Example: House rules are not written in advance, but as "important" rulings are made they are written down for future reference. Example: The GM makes snap judgments during play and allows no arguments. After play any such rules may be discussed and may or may not be added to the house rules. Example: The GM sets no character creation guidelines, all characters are considered individually and balanced by the seat-of-the-pants.

Re: Is anything in the system correctly priced? Everyman skills are priced right! I also think that the default assumptions (two arms, average human, etc) are right and not something you should pay for.

Re: Magical House Locks Some ideas: The lock itself is a solid piece of iron (or stone?). No moving parts, nothing to pick. The lock itself isn't magical so there is nothing to Dispel. Applying the key causes the "loop" part of the lock to become desolidified so it can be removed. Or, if the lock is built into a door, it is a solid non-moving deadbolt that desolidifies in order to allow the door to be opened or closed. Two ways you could model this: (a) the Key has a Suppress that applies to the lock. If the lock is 3 BODY 3 DEF then that's equivalent to a 30 AP Entangle that needs to be suppressed in order to open it. The owner has a key that only works for his lock, while the master locksmiths have a universal key. However if you could Suppress it then you could also Dispel it, so this is still kind of a "plot device" solution. Key: Suppress 10d6, No END (+1/2), No Range OAF key (-1), independent (-2), only works on keyed lock (-2), gestures: apply key to lock (-1/4); Active: 75, Real: 12 ( The Key is a Desolidification that only applies to the lock. This would be a very expensive way to build it but very secure. Key: Desolidification, No END (+1/2), Usable on Others (+1/2), OAF key (-1), independent (-2), only works on keyed lock (-2), gestures: apply key to lock (-1/4); Active: 80, Real: 13 Guildmaster's Key: Each guildmaster has his own key, and they cannot use each other's keys. A guildmaster's key can only be used on locks he himself has made, so if anyone ever opens the lock the master is the prime suspect. The master's key has a 60 pt side effect that is triggered if anyone other than that guildmaster tries to use his master key, OR if he tries to use his key on a lock he did not make. (Locks are carefully marked for this reason!) The side effect is as 12d6 EB intended to knock out and injure a miscreant. © An extra-secure lock could have X points of Power Defense against any key except it's own. This would protect against forged keys (that could be presumably be made by any wizard). Secured locks could also have glyphs (Damage Shield) against forced entry, alarms triggered by passwords, and so forth.

Re: Backpacks and other storage I've never treated them as bulky in my games, but then I never sat down and really thought about it before. Having carried a fully loaded backpack many times, it would be a serious hindrance in combat. I'd say 1/2 DCV nails it very accurately. Also I've noticed other gamers make a point of shrugging out of their backpack before combat, even going so far as to pay extra for a pack with "quick-release" straps. I'd never enforced that in my games but I will now. As far as nobody using one... good luck hiking around the wilderness without one! (FWIW I don't normally stat out ordinary gear, just use common sense. But this was an interesting exercise and a good way to think it through.)

Re: Backpacks and other storage The functions of a backpack: (1) Keeping items together so you don't lose anything. Only one thing to carry and keep track of, and it's big and hard to lose. This can be handle with a 1d6 Entangle, wiht the SFX that you can add or remove items from the entangle. If the entangle takes enough damage the pack is torn and won't hold stuff. A sturdier pack is a larger entangle. (2) A durable cover to protect items within from weather, moisture, bugs, animals, dirt, etc. The Entangle protects. (3) Carry gear while keeping your hands free. This could be an extra limb, only for carrying gear. The extra limb uses your native STR which works perfectly. (4) A well designed pack has pouches and tie-ons to organize travel gear for easy access. Quick acces for items you may need frequently while traveling. Items that are only needed when you stop (in camp) can be stored deep inside. I'd call this familiarity with Fast Draw (8-), only to retrieve small items. Failure means the item is buried deeper and needs extra time to locate or remove. Hooks and straps for hanging items could also be considered extra limbs, only for holding things. (5) Carry a large weight efficiently without undue strain or fatigue. A well-designed backpack has a rigid frame to which items are attached, and the frame is supported by a padded hip belt. Shoulder straps are only for balance. This strikes me as SFX, since it is a solution without a problem: HERO does not define any penalties for strain or fatigue of items carried without a pack. As far as I can tell the STR rules already presume you're using a pack. I would suggest that without a pack you can still carry the same weight, but fatigue and LTE rapidly accrue. With a shoulder-only pack your hands are free but your shoulders and back now feel the strain, so again LTE accrues. With a pack that puts the weight on your hips, you suffer no LTE. If you want a specific effect you probably just want to reduced LTE. I can't figure out how to apply a naked advantage to zero STR, so suggest just adding +1 REC suitably limited. (6) A backpack also provides some "armor" for your back. The Entangle is probable sufficient, especially combined with the DEF and BODY of whatever it contains. (7) Not a feature, but a backpack is bulky and limits your balance and movement. Treat it as a bulky focus. When it is in use (being worn) it is inaccessible since it is tied on. If a character leaves it unattended of course it can be easily taken. So, let's see: BACKPACK Light Pack (1 DEF, 1 BODY): Entangle 1d6 (10) and Extra Limbs (5), OIF bulky (-1), independent (-2), only for carrying gear up to 25 kg (-1); AP 15, cost 3 OPTIONS Pack with extra pouches: Fast Draw (9-), OIF bulky (-1), independent (-2), only for retrieving gear in the pack (-1); AP 2, cost 1 Heavy leather pack (2 DEF, 2 BODY): Entangle 2d6; AP 25, cost 5 Frame pack with weight on hips: +1 REC, OIF bulky (-1), independent (-2), only to eliminate LTE due to carrying up to 25 kg of equipment (-1); AP 2, cost 1 So a high quality adventurers pack, 2 DEF/2 BODY with extra pouches and a frame would be (25+2+2) 29 AP and (5+1+1) 7 real points. To target a backpack in order to tear it is -3 OCV. Wearing a backpack puts you at 1/2 DCV as it is bulky. A sack would be an entangle without the extra limb (you have to carry it in your hands); an iron chest would be a very heavy entangle; etc. - - - - - - - - - - You're on your own for the starship. As a starting point I might suggest: Entangle = restraining devices (straps, tie-downs, etc) for cargo Area of Effect (on Entangle) = defines area of cargo bay Telekinesis/ Extra Limbs = robotic loading/unloading machinery Change Environment = temperature control, statis fields, etc. KS = some sort of inventory control system (manifest listings)

Re: Alignment Issues Sorry, did not mean to imply that all Christians see this the same way, just that some do.

Re: Alignment Issues You are saying that one is evil because one does evil; logically then, if one wants to be good, they merely stop doing evil and start doing good. That is a narrow philosophical position in that it rejects the reverse as valid. In Christian philosophy, one does evil because one is evil; some would say that even if an evil person appears to do good it is tainted and not really good (though this is a point of debate), and ultimately their evil nature will assert itself. Essentially, good deeds do not make you good. Needless to say, those who hold to this worldview find the D&D idea of alignment rings very true to their perception of the world and is not backwards at all. Furthermore they consider a game that does not (or cannot) support the concept to be limited and second-rate. Just wanted to point that out.

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape? This thread started out asking why classes happen even though they are not required, and then sort of lost focus.

Re: The Professions of Arms PS: Paladin (PRE) Prerequisite: Perk (some sort of blessing or clerical investment), KS Theology. Paladins are likely to have a smattering of familiarities and contacts. Note: I see the paladin as a humble servant of a good god. He is not necessarily noble or even particularly attractive, although he could be. A paladin who also happens to be a knight would have two professional skills, one for each. My favorite paladin concept is a gruff earthy dude in battered armor who gets the job done, is merciless to his enemies, yet humble and gentle toward the weak. Paladins have a frank and trustworthy demeanor that aids in disarming opposition and appealing to conscience. They often know where to find help, and have something akin to Streetwise when it comes to locating and contacting allies. This extends not just to humans but to "good" monsters as well. Paladins also have finely honed discernment when it comes to detecting falsehood, fear, or evil intent in conversation. This extends to intuition about the character of a person, or even a lingering taint on a location and may be complementary to Danger Sense (with respect to evil dangers). Paladins have a professional knowledge of demons and evil cults; they are able to identify major players, and can recognize "cultic behavior" when they see it. They have a working knowledge of their own religion as well as that of their enemies. Complimentary to: - Conversation (with respect to lies or dark secrets) - Danger Sense (for supernaturally evil dangers) - Deduction (regarding demons and cultists) - Find Weakness (against demons and evil spells) - Persuasion (getting help for a quest) - Oratory (for calming or stirring up mobs) Example of PS: Paladin in Use The party is traveling and stops at a local inn. During the course of the evening the GM has the paladin make a PS roll to notice that the people are suspicious and seem to be avoiding something, although nobody else in the party notices. The paladin is able to win the trust of a local tinker, who divulges that the town is stalked by a demon or something (complimentary Conversation). The party finds a priest's body with a strange wound. The paladin makes his PS roll to recognize this as a ritual cult slaying probably related to worship of the snake god. A paladin comes across a crumbling ruin and decides the spend the night. He makes a PS roll and senses that a great evil was perpetrated here long ago. Being accustomed to this sort of thing, he shrugs and lays out his bedroll.

Re: The Professions of Arms PS: Knight (PRE) Prerequisites: Social Status Perk, Riding, at least familiarity with Sword and Lance. Most knights are educated in literacy, history, and warfare. Knights are well versed in mounted combat and knightly weapons of fine quality. They'll be able to analyze the artistry, quality, and origin of weapons. They know how to maintain their gear from their days as a squire, but these days someone else does it for them. They know how to care for a mount, how hard they can push it, etc. They know the rules of chivalry and of honorable warfare, and know how to play on another knight's psych lims. Knights are accustomed to command, whether it be squires or troops or crowds of people. Most knights have formal training in strategy and tactics, will be familiar with classic stratagems. Additionally they will often be professionally aware of the relative military strength of various nobles or mercenary units, the hiring and management of mercenaries, etc. Much knightly knowledge is related to administration and effective use of servants, rather than personal hands-on knowledge. Knights know how to train squires. Etiquette and protocol is second nature to a knight. Between their tendency to assume command and their knowledge of protocol, knights can often slip right through bureaucratic red tape. They know the proper forms of challenge, and also know how to weasel out of a challenge without losing face. They know how to influence rulers through flattery, and will recognize politically valuable or sensitive information when they hear it. Some knights or less noble character are adept at sneers, insults, intimidation, or bribery. Many knights are skilled in the arts of romance, and even if they are not, the knightly mystique works in their favor. Knights know how to dance and will typically be up to date on the latest court gossip; even if they have been away, an hour chatting and a successful PS roll will bring them up to date. Knights will know popular ballads and legends. Knights are familiar with hunting and falconry. Complementary to Bureaucratics, High Society, Oratory, Seduction, Tactics Examples of PS: Knight in Use The party is invited to a ball. The knight circulates and makes a PS roll to catch the latest gossip, and also makes a complimentary Seduction roll to win the favor of a lady, which he then pins to his surcoat in order to enrage a rival. The party needs to see a local baron but encounters a stubborn door warden. With a complementary Bureaucratics roll the knight establishes himself as the alpha male and twists the bureaucrat's excuses back on him, quickly winning admittance. The party is ambushed by bandits, but with a PS roll the knight realizes that they are using Korvad's Trap, a tactic taught among the southern provinces. Suspecting there must be another knight organizing the brigands, he issues a carefully phrased challenge that forces the other to reveal himself or be branded a coward. The knight realizes his horse needs grooming. He makes a PS roll and gets someone else (who by now is used to this treatment) to do it for him, while he kicks back and works on a poem he's writing to the fair lady Ismella.

Re: Character: Lennart's Vengeance Of course the tale of the avenging figurehead is considered a mere superstitious yarn by most sailors.... Lennart's Canard!

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape?

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape? Just for the record, and then I'll shut up on this point -- Pretty much the entire RPG world uses class and archetype interchangeably (myself included) and this thread is the first time I ever saw anyone distinguish between them. So I don't think this is an example of "gaming terminology." These things tend to snowball. Over at The Forge they've redefined many common terms to mean something special and as a result, an outsider can hardly tell what they're talking about. It's annoying and makes it hard for Forgeites to interact meaningfully with the rest of the world, plus it engenders a lot of ill-humor toward them.

Re: Class systems -- is there no escape? Well, checking four dictionaries and a thesaurus: "Wizard" and "Mage" are classes. "Merlin" and "Gandalf" are archetypes. Also I'd suggest that the "Magic-User" is an archetype, in that wizards in many games are patterned after the original D&D magic-user. The Magic-User archetype includes: - extremely limited physical combat abilities - has flashy and effective combat spells (fireball?) - is a specialist with exclusive access to magic, needed to round out a party - has exclusive access to powerful "magic items" not usable by other characters, and also exclusive ability to create potions and magic items - is balanced for play, being neither ineffectually weak nor overwhelmingly powerful, unlike wizards in myth and literature which seem to gravitate toward one of these two extremes The Magic-User archetype is not at all necessary. There are plenty of games where wizards can wear armor and fight, where they are unbalanced, where they may lack flash combat spells, etc. In a game like HERO the archetype does not exist at all unless you specifically create it. As for classes, most games are set up this way for two reasons: because classes are realistic, and because classes provide variety and balance when multiple players are involved. In order to understand these two reasons, you first have to understand what a game would look like without classes. A class is merely a group of characters that share common traits. By definition this means that there are other characters that do not share these traits. So then, if there were no classes then there would be no clear distinctions... for example, everyone could fight, everyone could use magic, everyone could sneak around, etc. The usual response to this is "not everyone will do all of them, but it should be possible" which brings us to the first reason. Classes are realistic. In reality, people specialize. This is due in part to people actually being interested in some things and not in others, but also due to economic realities and the simple fact that we have a short lifespan. There really is only time to master one trade. If everyone in the game world learned everything, then everyone would look pretty much the same and it would seem weird and alien. And dull. Which leads to the second reason: it would be really kind of boring if everyone were the same, and more importantly individual players would not be important. If everyone can fight, then the group really doesn't need a dedicated fighter and the fighter player becomes irrelevant, since any other PC can replace him. (Of course if you only have a single player then a jack of all trades is preferred, otherwise he'll have serious problems.) People play to have fun and be cool, but coolness is proportional to how important you are and how extreme you are. Without classes, nobody is important and nobody is extreme. Additionally it would be really dull if every NPC you encountered was the same fighter/wizard/thief/whatever mix. No variety, same challenge every time. And it is also boring if your character can do everything and has no weaknesses. Classes are good, and I don't think gaming would be much fun without them. However they have to be enforced because if you let people do anything they want, they will. If I had time and energy to learn martial arts and painting and blacksmithing and mechanical engineering and sailing and politics and law and medicine and 14 languages I certainly would. Allow it in a game and players will too. Not all would learn everything, but very very few would restrict themselves to a "realistic" limit. Of course in reality we can often learn a little about each of these, and theoretically we could learn any of them. So we bristle at inflexible class systems like D&D that flatly disallow variety. The problem is that we interpret a game rule that you cannot do X as somehow meaning that X is not possible, but that is just perception. A game rule in the form of a Physical Lim that says I cannot tell a lie does not mean that lying is impossible, it means I will never do it. Maybe a D&D wizard never learns to fight because he never chose to learn to fight, and as part of playing that class the player is voluntarily choosing to never be a good fighter. Not that fighting is impossible, if he wants to fight he can play a different class. Furthermore the GM can always make an exception, and besides what is going to happen if the Magic User picks up a sword and pokes someone with it? He is violating the rule, but I don't think anyone would say the world ends or it is impossible or anything. But in the spirit of cooperation each player voluntarily accepts certain limitations (after all he could play HERO instead). Thus the class limitatations are rules not reality, and compliance is 100% voluntary. A good roleplayer will take his class restrictions and find good in-character reasons for them, play them as if they are natural. That's my take on it. Classes are cool and I love them. They are not necessary but I think a game without them would be dull and would feel very unrealistic, not to mention not resembling classic fantasy. Mike

Re: The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the HEROic Unbeliever

Does anyone start their campaigns at 'normal' level? I'm thinking of starting PCs as skilled normals and roleplaying their development to Heroic level and beyond. Characters would start with most points in characteristics, racial packages, and background abilities (including rudimentary magic talent), since these cannot be easily acquired later with XP. But skills would be almost nonexistent, and most disadvantages would be acquired during play; for example Psych lims could be assigned based on events or how the character is habitually played. Would-be warriors would need to seek out training, would-be wizards need to get themselves apprenticed, etc. Sort of like the old zero-level idea in AD&D. I think it would be interesting to have characters grow organically based on needs and not just be "designed" for optimal performance.

What would be the effect of applying Trigger (or Delayed Effect) to the control cost of a VPP? Some possible interpretations: - The pool can only be reconfigured when triggered (or the delay is activated) - It acts like a naked advantage, applying to all powers in the pool. - All powers in the pool are required to have the triggered (or delayed) advantage applied to them. It was my understanding that any limitations applied to a framework must also be applied to all powers within that framework; but does this apply to advantages? If "trigger" is a restriction on powers in the pool then it seems like a limitation, not an advantage. Also a follow-up: In your response to a previous question, you said you would double check things and then update the FAQ. I have not seen any changes to the FAQ and was wondering if you forgot, or if you thought better of your answer? Thanks! Mike

Re: Divide by 3? My biggest problem with divide by three is that an 8-point spell ends up costing the same as a 9-point spell. This creates a new "breakpoint" in the system that can be powergamed -- you often can add a die of effect, or add an advantage, or remove a limitation without altering the cost. My fix is as follows: total the cost of all the spell before dividing by three. A more general and interesting solution is to create a High Magic Framework, which is a new framework added alongside EC, MP, and VPP. The HMF is very simple: the cost of the framework is equal to the total real cost of the spells it contains... except that you can apply any limitations common to all spells to the entire framework. For example, if you had spells costing 1,3,4,4,6,7,7,9,10,10,12,13,13,15,16 points, the HMF would cost 130 real points. If the spells all had the common limitation RSR (-1/2), Gestures (-1/2), Incantations (-1/2), and Concentration (-1/2), you get the divide the cost by 3 (43 points, compared to 41 using divide by 3). I'd recommend that if you have a focus as a common limitation, it has to be a single focus that affects all spells in the HMF. There are two advantages to this setup: (1) you cannot powergame the cost of each spell individually, and (2) spell casters are encouraged to create their own style of magic in the form of common limitations. The more specific your style, the more you save. The GM want to put a max limit on common limitations... on the other hand, a highly limited overall style will leave a wizard with huge blind spots that he has no spells to work around. Anyway, there's an idea. :-)

Turning Undead is cool, but I've never been thrilled with the idea that clerics can destroy undead monsters with a mere turning check. Undead should be one of the scariest foes, not a pushover, especially the greater undead. In D&D this was mitigated by level (only after many levels of experience can you dispel greater undead) and you also have to destroy the lesser undead first, giving the mastermind a chance to get away. In FH, it is suggested that the the turning check be extended with a EGO/PRE+40 level, and also says you have the target the most powerful undead first. However I think there are problems with this. With +60 PRE for the basic Turn Undead talent it's possible to destroy a greater vampire; a cleric with 15+60 PRE will do 15d6 (52) on average, and if he can manage +4d6 in situational modifiers he can hit 66.5. And that's just at the starting level! Each additional +1d6 only costs 1 character point, so you can destroy liches reliably for only 5 extra points. With the FH talent you have to destroy the largest undead first... but after taking out the BBEG the encounter gets much easier and the party can mop up any remaining minions. (Taking out the leader is always the best tactic, and here it is enforced!) A PRE attack uses no END and is a free action, so a cleric could theoretically take out an entire army in a single phase with multiple attempts. (The Turn Undead talent suggests Extra Time to fix this, but it still costs no END). Finally, there's only 20 pts difference between a skeleton and a lich; by the time you can deal with the minions you're within spitting distance of the mastermind as well. QUESTIONS Do you allow the +40 EGO/PRE to destroy undead in your campaign? Do you feel it is balanced, or does it make undead too easy? Does Mind Defense protect against presence attacks? I'm pretty sure Power Defense doesn't. ALTERNATIVE I am thinking of modifying this. First, eliminating the PRE +40 level, as it's not a standard rule and nobody else gets to kill with PRE attacks. (One could allow PRE +40 to be a heart attack from fear, but it's not a standard Hero rule.) Really it's a D&D-ism that violates the normal Hero way. But dispelling could be modeled in one of two ways: [1] RKA 4d6, no attack roll, only vs undead (-1), linked to successful PRE attack at PRE +40 level (-2). [2] Any PRE attack beyond the PRE +30 level causes 1d6K NND per 10 points of excess PRE. Example1: a cleric attempts to turn a skeleton and does 80 PRE vs. the skeleton's 10, achieving +70 PRE. That is enough to do 4d6 killing (NND) to the skeleton. Or he could do 3d6K to four skeletons, or 2d6K to sixteen skeletons. Example2: a cleric attempts to turn a vampire and does 80 PRE vs the vampire's 25, achieving +55 PRE; he causes 1d6K to the monster, hurting it and possibly stunning it but not destroying it. What do you think?

When a character changes form with Multiform, does any clothing and equipment "disappear" and later "reappear" when he resumes his original form? I need to write up a druid that can change form into a bear, but his equipment does not disappear or change. Clothes would rip, and metal armor would cause damage to the character.

Re: What setting does your campaign use? Do you have a link?