Alcamtar

Thanks everyone, that is very helpful. It seems like FH and the bestiary have a DC 6 balance point. Part of what I find confusing is I've seen published magic items with 3d6 HKA or more, and the core rules allow +1d6 or more for Deadly Blow and the like. Plate goes up to 8 rPD even before magical or fantastic materials are considered, and a single level of Combat Luck punches that up to 11 rPD. So the system scales to DC 9+ out of the box, and WILL unless the GM disallows it. But there seem to be a shortage of creatures that can withstand epic-scale fantasy heroes. I am also eyeing the guidelines in 6e1. At 300-400 points you are in the superhero realm, but nothing stops you from playing a heroic game at that level. When you scale up a FH game to 400 pts, do you follow the superheroic guidelines with regard to damage, OCV, CHA, and so forth? Or do you stick to heroic level guidelines, just at the upper end of the range and a broader set of abilities? (It strikes me that NCM can suck up a lot of points, so 400 pt heroes will be less powerful than 400 pt superheroes.) I've seen a number of fantasy characters posted online built on as much as 600 points, but it's not clear to me what a FH campaign looks like at that level or how you balance it in a systematic way.

In 6e2, Steve suggests that defenses should be 2x to 3x the DC of the average attack for a campaign, in order to maintain balance. Too low and characters go down too easily, too high and they are invulnerable. I assume that refers to normal defenses, and resistant defense should be roughly 1/3 of that. How does this apply to fantasy and other Heroic genres? Does this sound right, do do you do this, and if not why not? I am wondering because sample characters and creatures in the bestiary don't even remotely follow this guideline. Normals can punch for 2 DC, but have only PD 2. They should have PD 4-6 by this guideline. And if they use a simple weapon like a club they can easily manage 3-4 DC, suggesting PD in the range of 6-12. That is pushing past NCM... For low powered heroic fantasy, regular attacks are in the range of DC 4-6, suggesting defenses around 5r/12t. That probably matches a well built warrior pretty well. Sample monsters at this power level: Boar (DC 5, 3r/6t) Zombie (DC 4, 4r/4t) Mummy (DC 5, 8r/8t) Ghoul (DC 4, 3r/5t) Minotaur (DC 7, 3r/12t) Gargoyle (DC 7, 6r/12t) Orc (DC 4, 4r/8t) with a sword and hard leather +3 rPD Here we see the defenses are very low, generally only 1x to 2x the typical DC. In a higher powered game characters can be expected to regularly deal out DC 8 or more and deal with larger threats. We should expect to see defenses in the range of 8r/20t: Grizzly (DC 9, 2r/9t) Lion (DC 9, 1r/10t) Troll (DC 10, 2r/14t) Ogre (DC 9, 2r/11t) Giant (DC 9, 6r/18t) Wyvern (DC 9, 10r/18t) Giant Beetle (DC 12, 8r/16t) Dragon (DC12, 14r/20t) Giant Worm (DC12, 8r/28t) Some creatures have appropriate defenses, but others struggle to stay above a 1x ratio. I am trying to figure out what DC and DEF to set for a high powered fantasy campaign. I want to use the bestiary to save work. The attacks seems appropriate, but the defenses seem very low. Steve seems to not be following his own advice (and it's good advice). I have set the Active target at around 75 AP because that is what sort of spells I want to use, but this seems like it will easily walk over anything in the bestiary. Maybe I could limit attacks to 45 or 60 active, and allow the additional active pts only for non-damage effects like area or reduced END or whatnot. Looking for perspectives here.

What would you add?

*grin* Yeah I always seem to be a bit out of step!

That was also my feeling. For me it broke down to: - perceived reduction in freedom/creativity since the game was more "predigested" - perceived inflation of certain things like damage and OCV. Felt like the old +5/x2 "rule" was altered - increased complexity in published NPC and Power writeups. Change from "broad brush" to superdetailed (with bonus trivia!)

That is what I do. Just like d20, only with 3d6. AC=DCV, BAB=OCV. I've considered reworking skills to fit this so I have a unified mechanic, but that's more hassle than it's worth.

Have you tried building Magic Missile in 6e yet? We couldn't really do it justice in only 30 AP.

This sums it up for me too. I am currently using Fantasy Hero Complete. When 6E was introduced I abandoned the Hero System, but CC/FHC persuaded me to give it a chance. 6E is not without good qualities, but it changed too much. The only reason I play Hero at all is because of 4E: lingering nostalgia and the ability to leverage years of experience. The more the system changes, the less relevant these become. 4E was homely and imperfect, but (or should I say "therefore"?) it was magic.

Yes thanks, it was helpful to me too

Hmm. So for a Fantasy Hero fighter who uses melee weapons and also has a few MA maneuvers, can his Swords CSL be used when using his Sword with a maneuver? If not, that seems odd because it seems to me that MA maneuvers are just a special case of regular maneuvers that cost pts, and regular CSLs work with regular maneuvers. Put another way, the standard maneuvers are just 0-pt everyman MA maneuvers.

Other than unarmed attacks, what does 8 pt include that is excluded from 5 pt?

I use a rule of X: Running x SPD = 36m for all non-super humans. When you do all the calculations this matches real world movement rates very closely. I allow an adjustment of perhaps +/-2m, but more than that is just unrealistic. If you buy up SPD with experience points, you have to sell off an appropriate amount of Running. It also plays nicely with bigdamnhero's 1 LTE/hour travel rule. For non-humans and animals, I suggest computing movement per turn and then adjusting for SPD: If you know km/hour: Running = kph/SPD * 10/3 If you know Running: km/hour = Running * SPD * 3/10

Nice! I looked at the LTE rules a few years back and came to the conclusion they didn't yield satisfactory results for travel, but never bothered trying to fix it. I really like this proposal. I would suggest one adjustment: Each 600m (2000 ft) of ascent adds 1 hour and 1 LTE. The idea is that you burn energy at a fixed rate, so when climbing you naturally slow down to compensate for the extra work. This adjustment is really easy to apply. If the GM knows the route is going to cross a 4000ft ridge, just subtract 2 hours, leaving 6 hours of forward travel: the heroes still spend 8 total hours hiking so incur 8 LTE. I wouldn't bother with adjusting time or LTE for descent. Descent can be faster or slower, but not enough to worry about, it's just normal travel.

According to an old saying in Texas, the ‘white man’ would ride a horse until he was played out, the Mexican will take him and ride another day until he was tired and the Comanche would take over and ride to where he was going. (from the linked pdf in my previous post)

I think the traditional way around it is to change horses. The pony express covered 300+ miles in a day by changing horses every 10 miles and averaging 10-15 mph (at a canter or gallop). The Butterfield Overland Mail stage line covered 120 miles a day, changing horses every 20 miles, averaging 5-6 mph. I seem to recall reading that horses were rested for 24 hours after completing a stage, so as to not overwork them. On the trail, if each character brings along a spare horse for each loaded horse, you can change horses at the midpoint and double your distance. Horses are made to run, and without a load a horse can run all day. You'll still need feeding time, so if grazing you'll want to pick up the pace to leave sufficient time for cool-down and grazing in the evening. I would guess that if horses are stabled and fed on grain, you need less feeding time, and with lamplight you could extend feeding and grooming after sunset. I would think if you're bringing a whole troop of horses to increase movement speed, you might want to bring a dedicated groom to manage them. It seems that cavalry would baby their horses, but even so many would die in the course of travel. A unit would take some 10% extra horses to replace losses, and by the end of the campaign many riders would be left afoot when there were no more extras. This article is interesting and touches on some of that: http://www.soas.ac.uk/history/conferences/war-horses-conference-2014/file94552.pdf

I have heard it said that the horse is not for travel time or speed, but that it does the work for you. It can carry more weight and sucks up the fatigue. In Hero terms, it has more STR and it takes the LTE for travel instead of the character. If you have a serious need to move a long distance in a hurry, you can run the horse until it dies and then continue on foot; the horse may be dead buy you will be fresh and ready to walk for many more hours. Not only do you arrive less fatigued, but if you arrive twice as fast (for the same distance traveled) you can now take your ease in camp for some hours. On foot you spend all day walking and then spend all evening camping and cooking, trying to beat the dark, and then fall into bed exhausted, only to do it again tomorrow. With horses you have hours to spend in camp, talking or reading or maintaining gear or exploring the local area. You can cross modest rivers on a horse without getting himself or his gear wet. You don't have to walk through mud or snow. You need not watch every step, the horse will do that. Sitting on a horse gives you a commanding view of your surroundings. Horses may smell predators like wolves and alert you to danger. Horses confer a large advantage in battle, if they are trained, mainly I think in terms of having "high ground" and also in speed, as well as the intimidation factor. (I think this is very significant but you rarely see it modeled in games.) f you need to flee or move quickly, a horse can certainly move faster than you can, and you don't need to keep that up all day for it to be useful. Particularly for a wounded character, if you have a horse your wounds need not slow you down or prevent you carrying your gear. A well tempered horse might even carry you home by itself while you are barely conscious. A horse gives a greater sense of safety to the rider, elevating you and giving a sense of power. A horse is an indication of status and wealth. People will treat you with more respect. A fine horse shows taste and reflects honor upon its owner or rider. A horse is very valuable so serves as portable wealth or a bargaining piece, should you have need of it. For some, a horse is a pet/companion. Riding is enjoyable, even a sport. It is the same motivation as driving a sports car instead of an economy car. They both get you there in the same time, but one is much more fun and makes you look good in the bargain, and also gives the illusion of greater speed (even when you are not making use of it).

Oh I like the naked advantage idea!

Regarding the idea that Fantasy has a significant amount of ED, my point was that energy is usually a result of magic. Remove magic from fantasy and how many energy attacks are there? There is fire, which I would say is uncommon unless you're using D&D style greek fire or crazy trap setups on a regular basis. Otherwise there is not much, other than attacks by a few beasts... mostly dragons, which again means fire, though again if you have D&D type dragons you'll have cold and electricity which are energy. But apart from these -- and I would call all of these uncommon if not rare -- fantasy combat is almost all swords, stones, teeth, claws, crushing, rending... Then again maybe I just tend toward the realistic and understated in my fantasy games. Anyway it seems that it is only when you add magic that energy becomes a significant factor. And those beasts that have energy attacks are nearly all magical too: dragons, demons, elementals. The only type of critter that comes to mind that has a non-magical energy attack is the electric eel, which again is very uncommon in fantasy (which tends to downplay science and focus on mythical magical creatures instead). Hence my thought that energy basically means magic in a fantasy context. Other genres have a lot of energy attacks: flamethrowers, dynamite, electricity, napalm, concussion bombs, sonics, radiation, lasers, etc. Low fantasy sans magic is nearly devoid of weaponized energy. I don't think of ED as a dump stat. In my games it is usually within a few points of PD and I have sometimes wished they were combined into a single DEF stat (like CV used to be prior to 6E), because I had two stats with nearly identical values. When I first started Hero it seemed pretty cool but after a while ED seemed boring, like pointless clutter. Maybe I'm just not using it enough. That's a nice solution for a combination attack. Ah, now this is an interesting thought!

This weekend, I was contemplating PD vs ED. My game has always been Fantasy Hero, rarely so much as looking sideways at other genres, and the PD/ED divide always struck me as artificial. Something left over from superheroes, but needless clutter in a fantasy game, where PD and ED are listed separately but typically closely balanced if not identical. My ideas about supers are probably naive, neither reading comics much nor having ever played a supers game, but it seems to me that energy projectors are all about energy (duh!) while bricks and martial artists are all about physical stuff. In other words, PD and ED exist to express and differentiate character archetypes. Energy types have strong energy attacks and energy defenses, but are often weaker against physical attacks; and vice versa for the physical types. In fantasy, the most obvious character breakdown is magic vs mundane. Most fantasy game systems have the concept of saving throw, magic resistance, and so forth. This does not really exist in Fantasy Hero except in the sense of Power Defense, which probably should be a characteristic but instead is an obscure-ish power that is rarely taken. The 6e books even suggest creating a new stat for magic resistance in one of the toolkitting comments. So anyway my a-ha moment was that ED could be used to represent magic, while PD represents non-magic. In other words, if an attack is non-magical then it is PD regardless of whether we'd call it energy or not. And if an attack is magical then it is ED, regardless of whether it is fire or stone or whatever. Doing this would accomplish the whole magical defense notion without resorting to houseruling it in or trying to shoehorn power defense or some limited version of PD/ED. It is my experience that only one player will bother with that stuff, the one whose character concept relates to it, and everyone else goes with the default build. So to make it apply to everyone, it has to be part of the default stuff that everyone buys. PD and ED are stuff nobody can ignore. As an example of how this works: normal armor might protect against PD only yet be completely transparent to spells, with 0 ED, or maybe it only offers half protection against magic. Magical armor might be the reverse, with limited physical defense but very high ED. A globe of invulnerability to magic would have astronomical ED but no PD. A creature immune to physical attacks but susceptible to magic would have high PD but low ED, and a magic sword that does 2d6 to both normal and magical creatures would need to do BOTH types of damage at once. (Can you even do that? Buy damage twice, once for each type?) Anyway, just tossing this out there. It seemed new and interesting to me, but maybe it is already a well-trodden road? I think the notion has a lot of promise, but would require building the setting and equipment and spells from the ground up to implement it properly. I'm thinking that, for fantasy anyway, losing the ability to express physical vs energy doesn't really have much impact, as pretty much the only energy attacks you'll ever encounter are magical anyway.

Thanks for the responses. FWIW this evolved from a D&D style concept, so a slot based system was the starting assumption. The player really wanted to avoid END tracking, saying an energy- or fatigue-based approach didn't feel right for his concept, and it evolved in the direction of Avatar: The Last Airbender.

For an elf, we want magic to work in this way: The character uses a VPP to draw power from his surroundings; it can be natural effects like sunlight or wind or cold, or it could be things like drawing the entropy from a decaying ruin or the happiness from a child. So it is sort of like a mimic pool, but defined as a sort of "poetic mimicry" rather than copying someone's powers, and it's not really elemental either. Specific spells will be written up with defined power sources. So far so good, that part is fairly easy. The tricky part is this: the character can use his powers as long as he is in proximity to the source of his power. He can absorb and store a limited quantity of power for use later, similar to Delayed Effect, to be discharged later, but these cannot be recovered until in the presence of an appropriate source again. The obvious solution for this is to say that all powers are 0 END (+1/2), Delayed Effect (+1/4), but have a limitation only usable in the presence of <source> (limitation appropriate to rarity). This allows them to be freely used when you can draw upon a Source, with a limited ability to "store some for later". If the sources are defined properly, this system should be about as balanced as the usual END-based powers. The problem is that with a VPP, the +3/4 advantage vastly increases the AP of all powers, though not in a predictable way. Some powers will be nearly doubled, but others that already have a +1 advantage from elsewhere will have much less effect. So the AP limit on the VPP is out of whack in an unpredictable manner, and you're paying a premium for a double-sized VPP to get the same actual benefit as normal END-based powers. (This is a great example of how Hero's math can get wonky. 60 pts of actual effect is inflated 75-105 AP depending on the specific advantage mix, for no actual benefit.) An alternate method to define this is: 8 recoverable charges (+0) on the VPP slots. The charge recovery is defined as drawing from an appropriate Source. When away from a power Source, you can use a power up to 8 times from stored energy before needing to recharge, which opportunity may not occur for days or weeks; but if you're right there drinking from the fire hose, you can recover instantly. Mechanically it is defined to work exactly the same way, but the costs are completely different, and the VPP AP limit is both appropriate and balanced. Does this seem balanced? Does the charges mechanism seem like an appropriate approximation for cost purposes? (One inclination was to just handwave away the +3/4 and say it doesn't count against the VPP limit, but unfortunately it doesn't play well in Hero Designer. I don't know a way to tell it to exclude certain advantages from AP calculations, but include them for purposes of other advantages. For example autofire changes value due to the 0 END, so if I don't include that advantage in the power then HD won't calculate it correctly.)

If they came to Hero from D&D or some rules light game, it may simply be that Hero finally lets them do the fighter concept justice. Fighters are boring in many editions of D&D. Hero makes them cool and interesting. Maybe it's only an expression of pent-up fighter envy. Some thoughts on what you could do to encourage diversity in fighter PCs: Give them foes that are hazardous to get close to. Encourage development of some archer types. Give them some politics or sneaky type challenge, where barging in with sword flashing is a really stupid and unproductive plan. Encourage sneaky thiefy skills. Give them opponents who are swift and swashbuckly, to encourage light fighters. Give them scary undead or demons that are mostly immune to hacking but vulnerable to "holy" powers. Encourage paladins and templars. Show, don't tell. Create interesting NPC thieves, paladins, etc with interesting and effective abilities and tactics. Clearly these players enjoy fighter types which is cool, but they may not have considered the diversity available. How about a diablo paladin with a freeze ability, or a barbarian with a paralyzing war cry? Simple and hackneyed but fun. Listen to their after game chatter, listen to what shows and characters they talk about, and then put these in the game as NPCs or opponents. Make the players hungry again by tempting them. These options are to meant to encourage diversification and specialization. Lots of fighters is cool as long as they are unique and interesting. I prefer more fighters than mages, but monotony is not a good thing. Uniformity only makes me think "expendable." You could consider upping the lethality of the game. Do it gradually so everyone has a choice in how to react. One response to lethality is to rely more on diplomacy or stealth. Another is to develop ranged attacks. But some will brashly charge ahead because they value action more than self-preservation, or possibly because they are not so attached to their characters. If one or a few die, you have scored a huge win in dramatic tension, because everyone knows there is no immunity. but also, those that die will make new characters. They may be fighters or they may not. Some folks, like me, enjoy playing different characters each time. Maybe they started playing a fighter and the only reason they are still doing so is that they have not died, they don't have an "out". I have used near-death experience to give a divine vision and offer healing in exchange for service as a paladin. That would both add diversity AND relieve the healing issue. For the mages, obviously you don't want to be unfair, consistently tilting the playing field to favor mages. But what are some ways to add some variety into the mix and give the wizards an occasional moment in the spotlight? You could create some opponents that are only defeated by magic, so that it is important that they not waste their powers on supporting roles but they are needed to win the day. The fighters need to protect the mages from then army of ten thousand skeletons, but cannot take out the big bad guy. You could create a battlefield (cursed shrine?) that suppresses healing powers. This will challenge the fighters and give the mages a refreshing breather. Alternately make healing easy: sprinkle in some healing potions as treasure, or a ring of regeneration, etc. Place a healing pool. Have a demon curse the mage and destroy his healing ability for a time. This will limit the fighters, but then again you're not short of replacement muscle! A vampiric monster that feeds on strength, starting with the most hearty characters (i.e. fighters)

Alcamtar was a character name from an example magic item build from the 1985 edition of Fantasy Hero. My first game was B/X D&D, circa 1981 or 82. That was also my first GM experience... I didn't have anyone else to play with so I roped my family into it. Currently prepping a Fantasy Hero (FHC) adaptation of Master of the Desert Nomads (X4/X5). This is the first Hero in some years, as we've been playing B/X D&D and ACKS exclusively, and Dungeon World before that. First played Fantasy Hero in 1985. Also played Star Hero once in 1986 (IIRC). Those are the only Hero genres I've played.

I don't like tying overland movement rates to characteristics, because people (and animals) are variable but movement tends to average out over time. Instead I prefer a simple rule of thumb that applies equally to everybody, and then I can adjust that a bit for situation or individual. Leisure Backpacking I'd put at about 2mph, with a pack around 30lb (20kg), what we call a "trudge." Actual movement is a bit faster, but after accounting for rests, meals, and slower movement up/down hills, that's a good average figure. Inexperienced or out of shape hikers move more slowly than that, and strong experienced hikers can do better than that, but that's a decent average. Note that this is from my experience and supported by family and friends' experience, but we take occasional backpacking and hiking trips for up to a week at at time; but we don't "live on the trail". In that case 3mph is a good estimate for an experienced hiker or an unencumbered hike. This "leisure rate" is relevant because a party moves as fast as its slowest member. While the Aragorn types may be able to walk 3mph up and down mountains, the bookish wizard may only manage 2mph. Same for the villager you took on as a guide, or the nobleman who hired you and insisted on coming along, or the prisoner you rescued. And if hiking in plate armor with a 15kg backpack, even Strider is going to slow down a bit. It's the little things that get you: getting hungry, muscle and joint aches, blisters on your feet, chafing from the back, neck and back fatigue. Hiking up or down hills really slows you down. Muddy or uneven footing is bad. Walking through ankle deep ferns requires care because you can turn a foot, and doing so while loaded with a backpack can throw your balance and result in a sprain or a painful fall. People who hike fast for long periods are either experienced with heavy muscle and endurance, or carrying a light pack, or both. They also stick to good trails. Modern ultralight packing doesn't exist in a fantasy setting, with nearly weightless gear, freeze dried foods, and well engineered packs. Put a week's worth of normal food in a wood frame leather pack with a wool blanket and you have a heavy load, no avoiding it! While I have backpacked a lot, I have not horse packed. My research suggests that horses can manage about 6 hours a day, right in like with FH6. They move faster than men, but can't keep it up as long, so the overall distance is about the same. After a days' ride/work, a horse needs 60-90 min to cool down before it can eat. Then it needs to graze slowly during the afternoon for about 2-3 hours on good grass. So that means striking camp at 8am, riding for 6 hours, then stopping about 2pm. The horses can start grazing by 3 and be finished by dusk. If you bring grain you need less grazing so might shorten the camp time a bit, and longer summer days allow more time, but then you risk overworking the horse. Some accounts I've read of long distance riding show about a day of rest time for each day or two spent traveling, and if a horse gets sick you'll be stuck in one place for a week or more until it recovers. I figure a maximum of 4-5 days of travel per week is a decent compromise for a fantasy game. By contrast, humans need little time in camp and have greater endurance for hiking longer. Horses are built for speed, not endurance, humans the opposite. In the 1800s it was popular to do endurance walks (google pedestrianism), walking 100 miles in 24 hours, or 1000 miles in 1000 hours (24 miles a day for 42 days straight). Horses can't do that. I also suspect you can't do that with a pack. Heather Anderson walked 2660 miles in 60 days. ("She was walking, at 3 miles per hour, for extremely long distances, covering 40 to 50 miles per day.") It is relevant not in that this is realistic for fantasy characters, but that it is possible at all, because horses cannot. Naismith's Rule (google) predicts 1 hour for every 3.1 miles, and 1 hour for every 2000 ft climbed. Note that if you climb 2000 ft in 3.1 miles that is 2 hours! So distance traveled is not really distance. Also, climbing takes a lot of energy. Backpacking in hilly country, you can easily eat double the calories you normally eat. Food is critical. People also underestimate water. Each person needs 1-2 qt (1-2 kg) of water per day, and each horse will need 10 gal (~40 kg) of water a day. Double that in the desert. If there are no water sources (and sometimes there aren't, summer can be bone-dry even in the forested mountains) you'll have to carry it. Ultimately are are many many variables, so pick something that feels right to you and your group. I wouldn't bother with fancy formulas, they'll be inaccurate. My rule is that backpacking averages 10-15 mi/day and maxes out at 24 mi/day. Stick to that and you're golden. 24 mi is also a nice round 40km in Hero terms. For gaming, I usually stick to 12 mi per day as a reasonable default on hilly terrain following a trail, double that unencumbered on a road, halve that in very difficult terrain. The players never know precisely how far or fast they went, and anything more complex is just straining at gnats. I'd rather focus effort on making travel evocative and interesting than precisely timed. I'll also add: NOTHING will improve your refereeing (and playing) of wilderness travel as actually going out and doing it. You don't even need to do much, just go out in the woods or fields and hike for a few hours. If you can, camp overnight at least once. Even better, backpack for a minimum of 4 days; we always say the first two days are hell while you're adjusting to it and getting blisters, and you hit your stride on the 3rd or 4th day. That's when it gets easier and your endurance kicks in and it starts being enjoyable. Backpacking is very different from camping or ordinary unencumbered hiking.

That 25 lb of beer gut may or may not mean anything. The skinny guy may or may not be in shape. The strong guy may not have great endurance. My girlfriend is the same height as I am and maybe 25% heavier. But under the fat she is athletic and very strong. She can out-hike any of us, both speed and distance, like the energizer bunny. If she is at any disadvantage compared to me she sure hides it well. In fact I would even suggest that the "thicker" people are often better hikers than the thinner people; the thinner ones tend to move faster, and are more agile, but they also wear out faster. There are different types of muscle, different body chemistries, different natural talents. A simple number like STR or CON is so grossly inadequate to describe such things that it's laughable. "CON" may mean wildly different things for two different people (doesn't get sick? has endurance? resists poison? resists stunning? heals quickly?) Maybe beer gut guy has a 24 CON because he can hold his liquor!