Mr. Negative

I'm considering starting a new FH campaign, either in Lankmar, or in a "fantasy" medieval setting, and one of the things I wanted to do was create a relatively low magic feel without preventing spell-caster PCs. Although this was never overtly part of the Lankhmar mythos (either in the books or in the D&D conversion), I noticed that, other than gods and absurdly powerful spell-casters, virtually every spell cast in Lieber's works is cast through a device. Aha! My idea is to only allow "wizards" to purchase their spells through magic items. All spells must have a Focus, though it does not have to be expendable (although potions and the like should be, or have expendable charges). The focus should be personal, to reflect that the item is used to direct the power of the wizard himself. Universal Foci, usable by everyone, are acceptable, but must be Indepedent as well (these are really more for things like Magic swords, etc that will more commonly be acquired by the PCs than enchanted by them). In play, this would mean that a wizard would whip out his wand to cast lightning bolts, or perform a ritual with his brazier to summon a smoke demon, rather than simply casting a spell on someone. This would mean that actual spell-casting was done as a form of enchantment or ensorcelment, and was done in advance of using the magical power you were imbuing. The actual use of magic would be separate from the "creation" of magical devices. It also would mean, for my game world, that enchanting something so that it could produce magic was a difficult and time-consuming task (as you are spending character points to do so), so that you don't often encounter trivial bits of magic (like enchanted hairbrushes and the like). It also means that magic will be relatively cheap (as everything is at least an IIF, before any other limitations), but that you can neutralize a magic user in much the same way that you would neutralize a fighter, by removing his equipment. It also finally renders the alchemist a viable adventuring class, as instead of having wands or rings or bracers or a staff, he has potions and powders. In normal FH, as the regular spell-casters can just produce their effects, the alchemist seems kind of pathetic, as he needs to make everything in advance in the kitchen. If every wizard has to have his props, then the alchemist shines, as his "spells" while having fewer, expendable charges, can be much more varied and flexible. Has anyone else tried a system like this? Do you have experience with the problems/pitfalls of such a system? Even if you haven't played with such a system before, I'd welcome any comments and ideas. As a final aside, I was also thinking, for those villians who needed the extra edge, and those players who simply had to have innate magic, of allowing wizards to "enchant" their own bodies as well, either through tattoos, ritual scarring, or powerful magic. Thus, a nekkid shaman might have defensive tattoos, or a vile sorceror might have a stare of submission, or a wicked enchantress might have a kiss of domination. Of course, these powers would not qualify for a focus limitation, and so would be more expensive than normal wizardry. Would this dilute the idea too much, or might I want to limit it only to the most powerful of wizards?

But again, this is a conditional advantage, much like other conditional advantages. You can endlessly debate these. For example: The HW's armor doesn't help at all against ALVD and NND attacks, while the LW's better DCV does. The LW might appear to be less of a threat than the HW and may not attract the massive attacks a heavily armored behemoth does. The light warrior doesn't need to worry about his "dangerous appearance" in law-abiding towns and villages, nor about taking a dunk into a river, moat, or lake, while the HW does. In addition, using the monetary costs, the LW could easily afford a missle weapon, and perhaps more tools and gear. I think its a wonderful idea to compare the HW and LW in a "neutral" combat situation, because it really shows that the LW isn't as disadvantaged as you might think, but it's also really important to remember that there's almost never a "neutral" combat situation. eepjr24 made the point that the LW will always have to use strategy in this situation, and I think that point is not only good, but key to the whole understanding of LW usage. Light Warriors, almost by their conception, should NEVER voluntarily put themselves in a trading blows situation. The light warrior is inherently a swashbuckler/derring do/showman/showoff character. Even if, statistically, he is capable of wearing down the HW, thematically, he should be humiliating him, tossing sand in his face, tripping him, etc. Even the most murderous and cold Light Warriors out there, like hired killers and assassins, should be ambushing, suprising, and out-maneuvering their foes. I think that the only time a LW doesn't measure up, overall, to a HW, is when someone tries to use them like a D&D character (a poorly played D&D character, I'll add) and just follows an "I attack, you attack, I attack" strategy.

I agree that, in most circumstances, they are not needed. However, the addition of some sort of a "saving throw" mechanic makes some spell effects both acceptible (from a game balance perspective) and affordable (in terms of points). Say that you want a "Death-touch" type spell that literally, always kills anything that you use it on. This is too powerful, and too effective. However, if you take that same 8d6 NND Killing attack (does body), and limit to Not if target makes EGO roll, you might get a -0.5 to -1 limitation on it, making it both more affordable and more reasonable. The same goes for a lot of "All or Nothing Spells". Rather than having the effect depend on rolling well, or even rolling average, you can instead buy more dice (perhaps even apply Standard Effect rules) and limit them with a "saving throw". Maybe you have a "Polymorph into Frog" spell that will always transmute someone into a frog, unless they have a strong will. I don't think this mechanism will come up too often, especially with PC spells (as few of them are sufficiently powerful to be "absolute" spells), but in this manner, you can create spells that succeed or fail based more on the victim's abilites than on the powers of the spell-caster. It's certainly not necessary (especially for normal combat spells and the like, which are reflected much better by dodging and jumping for cover), but could really be a viable mechanism for particular spell conceptions.

My point was in specific response to Old Man's quote that : This complaint does not necessarily imply that strength is too effective for it's point cost, but may imply that a high strength is too easy to acquire, and thus too inexpensive for its supposed rarity ("...everyone buys it"). It may be (or it may not be) the case that strength is appropriately costed for the benefits conferred, but that, even though appropriately costed, those benefits are so desirable that everyone, regardless of conception is willing to pay the points cost. Consider Resistant Defenses. Most players, in most games, desire to purchase resistant PD and ED, possibly even against their character conception ("I have 9 PD through Combat Luck!). Similarly with Speed. Even if a character isn't conceived of as particularly speedy, most players will shell out for a 3 or 4 Speed for the benefits involved. This doesn't mean that Speed or rPD is too cheap, but that the benefits are perceived as so desirable that few characters are created without an investment in each. It may be the case that STR is undercosted for its effectiveness. However, I'm unconvinced that it is substantially undercosted compared to other attributes (Dex gives you a load of benefits too). However, I totally agree that its benefits are perceived as desirable to virtually all players. This makes a high strength more common than would be normally expected. While making it more expensive MAY prevent them from purchasing it in huge amounts, the "perceived benefits" of a high strength may still lead players to shell out disproportionate points for it. If achieving a proper "rarity" of high strength is your goal, it may be more productive to use methods other than simply increasing the points cost of Strength. I think that we are simultaneously dancing around two linked but not identical topics on this thread, and I know that I, for one, am not always consistently perceiving the difference (or making my distinctions correct). Is Strength too effective for it's point cost? Regardless of role-playing considerations, does strength convey more game benefits per point, than other attributes of the same cost? Is a high strength too easily achieved, and too often desired? Do players "bend" their conceptions to justify purchasing a high strength, just to reap the benefits of doing so? My own answer to the second would be yes, emphatically, but I would also state that I feel that the same occurs with Dexterity as well. My answer to the first would be "I'm not sure". I'd want to see, in particular, more writeups with the higher cost before I was convinced. I'd also like to see if anything needed to be done to the following" Telekinesis Density Increase Hand Attack Martial Arts (as Martial arts would now be twice as effective, than before, in increasing damage compared to Strength) Extra Damage Classes (for the same reason). I'd be interested in seeing specifics on these, either in this thread or another. However, my own opinion stands that, from a "rarity" perspective, GM input, rather than recosting, is often the best way to moderate high ability scores (strength or anything else).

I'd really like to see monsters with notes as to whether they are appropriate for High, Low, and/or Swords and Sorcery Fantasy. Having done so, I'd also like to see that there are roughly an equal number of "monsters" for each system. I have a real trouble coming up with specific examples here, but I'd like to see both monsters that could only exist in worlds with powerful magic, who could only be dealt with by the most puissant of heroes, and monsters who aren't totally fantastic, and could be dealt with using a crossbow. To give you some ideas from Lankhmar, one of my most favorite settings: Snow Serpents (long, white, furry, venomous snakes) Intelligent, sword wielding octopi Cloakers Intelligent Rats Ghost Wolves Ghouls (humans with invisible flesh, but visible bones) Not that I want to see these things in particular, but many, many "beastie books" emphasize very powerful and magical beings, and I'd like to see a good selection of lower-powered, and strange, but not necessarily fantastic monsters. Also, extended write ups of common NPC types (particularly those you encounter in combat) would be GREAT. Assassins, thugs, cultists, city guards, drunken ruffians, surly noblemen, brigands, bandits, pirates, slavers, etc. All of these would be great (and would be very useful to those of us running low fantasy and Swords and Sorcery campaigns). Also useful would be ideas on adapting "more fantastic" monsters to low fantasy and Swords and Sorcery campaigns. For example, you might suggest that "low fantasy" dragons might be of animal intelligence, unable to fly (or only to fly with difficulty), be limited in size (20 feet or so), and have poisonous spittle instead of a breath weapon. I'd also love to see more folkloric supernatural creatures (again, useful for low fantasy and S&S). While I know that some of these are to be saved for a "fairy folk" idea, doing creatures such as the Black Dog, banshee, etc. would be very useful. Finally, monsters that fit into a Horror fantasy setting (like Ravenloft) would also be appreciated. While a healthy helping of Undead is great, including creatures such as flesh golems, and giving GM tips on using monsters in a "horror milieu" rather than a "heroic" milieu would also be great. So, to summarize my very long list: Monsters for low fantasy and swords and sorcery Commonly encountered opponents Monsters from Folklore Monsters appropriate to horror rather than heroic fantasy

Oh, I don't disagree with the alternate magic systems, in the least. I'm just suprised by the prevalence of magic systems presented that offer substantial discounts on spellcasting. There were very few systems that actually suggested paying full price for spells, and no systems written up that use the power frameworks presented in HERO. I was suprised by this because, to me, HERO has a very good structure for creating several really interesting systems of magic, as a basic system. There are a multitude of systems using just real points and limitations (especially if you factor in an END reserve), and once you consider systems using a multipower, a VPP, or an elemental control, you can really create some wild and different systems. However, FH largely just glossed over those options, in my opinion. Instead, it presented a variety of systems that work outside of the normal structure of the game (if there is such a thing). I just found that odd, since there are such a plethora of cool ideas within the game. The magic system section read as if it were written for someone who was determined to use a particular magic system and wouldn't use HERO unless they were sure HERO could emulate their magic system sufficiently. That isn't, in and of itself, a bad idea. I'm all for convincing people to free their minds and let HERO into their lives. However, by focusing the magic system chapter on extra-HERO systems, I feel a bit cheated, as if HERO, by itself, weren't "cool enough" to generate neat magic systems, and GM license were necessary, rather than optional. The previous chapter on designing magic was VERY useful and well-written, but the magic systems themselves really read (to me, of course) as if they were written for non-HERO gamers, as a inducement to the system.

This was something that I should have thought of, but I didn't. It arguably makes sense, but I'm going to argue it: First, if this is a concern, make fighters pay points for equipment, as there are already well-established, tested rules for such (Champions), instead of using a mechanic that doesn't fit within the game. Second, "fighters" aren't the only ones who can use equipment. There's nothing from preventing the wizard from hiding behind a pavise, and shooting the opposition with a poisoned quarrel from a crossbow. Third, the points balance is way off. Firstly, most equipment, as it is a focus and Independent, would ring in at relatively few points, while some of these spells are easily 30-60 real points. Secondly, the equipment CAN be stolen, lost, or damaged, while a Perk and a Skill are relatively hard to lose. I'm not arguing with you that this wasn't the reason that these magic systems were created. I haven't heard anything one way or the other, so you may well be correct (and it's certainly plausible). I am, however, disappointed that a "gamer's toolkit" didn't take us "inside" the process so we could see the metagaming reasoning behind these systems, or discuss the game-effects that such tinkering might have. Experienced GMs will undoubtedly spot the effects, but a newer GM might be quite suprised in the differences between purchasing each spell individually and some of the systems involved. Even an additional paragraph for each magic system talking about the type of magic use that this system enables (rather than just the "role-playing feel" that it creates) would have been a little more useful. Something along the lines of: As wizards can use ANY spell within their spell circles, wizards will be very flexible if there are a sufficient number of circles, each with many spells. Wizards will also tend to take a high skill level to allow them to cast the most difficult spells. If either of these is disruptive to your game, you might wish to limit this in some manner. You could tightly focus each circle, making sure that each circle has strongly themed spells (which would serve to limit the flexibilty of wizards). You could not provide overly powerful spells for each circle, so that there are no such "uber-spells" available. You might also wish to share your concerns with the player, and encourage her not to take a wide variety of Circle Skills, and not to buy up the skills to such high levels, in order to fit the character better into your campaign. Also be aware that with this system, wizardry is very affordable, so that many players may wish to play a wizard, or to have skill in at least one circle of magic. If this is not desired, you may need to talk to your players about the rarity of spell-casters within your campaign, or increase the cost of the Wizard Perk until only those players who wish to focus their character around spell-casting are willing to pay the cost (thus discouraging casual sorcerors).

Is anyone else suprised by the level of "free magic" handouts suggested in FH? Some of their systems give the caster a free Variable Power Pool. Others give the caster a huge discount on a variable power pool (say 80%), but place limitations on it which, to my eye, don't limit it nearly that much. Two of the systems discount all spells purchased by 80%, and while one requires a Perk purchase, and the other puts limitations on spell-casting (power, duration, and frequency), neither amounts to a -4 limitation in my eyes. One system simply doubles the power of any attack spell against someone whose True Name you know (at no cost increase at all). One system requires you to buy a Perk to be a wizard, and then a skill for each "Circle" of magic, but then gives you access to all the spells in that circle for free. This one is the most confusing, as it lists Total costs for each spell, but specifically says "this allows him to try and cast any spell from those three circles" referencing a wizard who has skills in three circles of magic. While, of course, these are just suggested magic systems, and any GM is free to use them, or create any magic system that he like on his own, I was still really suprised to see points costs thrown out the window. Each of these systems gives Wizards substantially more power than they are paying points for. While this is, of course, up to the GM, I didn't see any real mention of WHY this is necessary, or how to balance the game. It seems that to me, doing so is either going to make everyone want to play a wizard (which may be what you are going for), as wizards get "free points". They get abilities that they are not paying for. Either that, or it is going to really discourage the non-spell casters, as they are paying full points for their abilities, but see their friends getting stuff at a steep discount. Not only was this jarring coming from HERO, where there has always been an emphasis on "charging what it's worth" for powers, but it was also suprising to see no discussion of what impact of such deep discounting of magical ability would have on game balance and party composition. I really expected to see more information and ideas on how to get various systems of magic to work "within" the pay-for-what-you-get methodology of HERO and less "give-it-away" systems that dispensed with the normal cost-advantage-limitation structure. There's about one page (front and back) on buying spells through normal structures (Individual Purchase and Spell Frameworks like VPP, Multipowers, and EC), and even part of that real estate is devoted to a Spell Skills idea where you buy a skill roll for spells, but don't pay the Real Point cost of the spell itself (again, with no mention of how this might affect game/points balance). There is so much complexity available for good magic systems using Multipowers and Variable Power Pools, and both only got a few paragraphs in the book. Entire magic systems could be constructed around a carefully crafted VPP, and the system would be "points-balanced". Instead, we get systems that throw the points structure out the window. This is a viable option (it's your game), but there was no corresponding discussion of what impact that might have on the game (do fighters get all the martial maneuvers for free?).

For doing wizards the way that I normally envision them, the VPP is a must. Having said that, let me qualify it: First, I envision all but the most minor of mages as being capable of "less impressive" feats of magic than usually seen on the battlefield. Second, I am a HUGE fan of the idea of spell prerequisites of the GURPS system. That is to say, if you can cast an explosive fireball, you must know how to cast a regular fireball, as well as be able to create and shape fire, ignite fires, etc. This system is WONDERFUL for "focusing" wizards around themes, rather than allowing them to exist as amorphous blobs of useful spells. Now, requiring wizards in FH to buy tons of minor spells is a bad idea. It costs too many character points and doesn't reflect well in effectiveness. The wizard ends up with 80 point in spells and 1 or 2 dramatic and effective ones, which is normally not what a wizard player is looking for. I actually use the VPP for all the character's spells, to reflect that their magic is all emanating from one source. However, to do this, I do put several restrictions on the lot. Shifting points in the pool requires no time, as the mage can cast one spell one turn and another spell the next. Virtually all spells must have a success roll of one sort or another ("to hit" or activation). I don't use a spell skill roll for each spell as this encourages the player to buy it up as high as possible, and because a wizard may know a new spell poorly (low activation roll) and another spell very well (high or no activation roll). Virtually all spells require concentration, gestures, and incantations to cast, as well as extra time (sometimes just a full phase), though certain spells (reflexive defense spells only) do not. Finally, I STRONGLY limit the spells in the VPP to the following: All spells must be completely written up in advance (wizards have an established repertoire of spells and do not "make them up on the fly" in my campaigns. All spells must have been previously approved by the GM. All spells must either fit into previously established "colleges" of spells known by the mage, or be very minor spells (representing a new sphere of magic being explored). Minor magics from a college or sphere must be known (written up) before any major spells are written up. This means that, to be a fire wizard, for example, you should be able to light fires, keep yourself warm, and protect yourself from fires before you can start learning to throw more powerful fire spells. This is highly subjective, so beware! Advanced magical knowledge (many or powerful spells) should also be represented either by a high KS: Magic roll (for the generalist), or decent KS: Fire (or Earth, or Enchantment, or Necromantic, etc.) Magic rolls. This means that to be a wizard with a great deal of spells, you need to actually know a lot of information about your area of expertise. Also, many important spells "bump up" against the Active Point limit of the VPP, even though their combat effectiveness is minimal. For example, a "Clean Wounds" spell that removed infection and foreign objects from a wound would need to be a fairly powerful transform (as it consistently removes these objects even from a character with a high body), but would be a fairly limited spell, as it may take lots of extra time, require a willing subject, and can really only be used to help someone. In cases like this, the GM could allow the Active Points of the spell to exceed the VPP limit, but I would probably still limit the REAL points to the Pool limits (and only in cases like this, where the exception is needed to "allow" an important, plausible, balanced game effect. I would like to point out that this system of magic is not universal, nor even common in fantasy worlds. Many worlds use a system that assumes each spell is a separate block of knowledge, or kind of a magical maneuver that you have trained in. My point is only that a VPP magic pool is very viable for FH, but that the GM must take a very active role in ensuring that the specifics of the VPP mesh with the metaphysics of magic in his world.

Right now, unfortunately no. Two of my regular RPGers have children, and three of my regular wargamers have children (or are expecting) (and overlap with my regular RPGers). Thus, it is a struggle just to get together for one night a week (which we usually reserve for Warhammer). I love role-playing at least as much, if not more than miniature wargaming, but I have to admit that it is REAL CONVENIENT that with wargaming, no one has to prep the entire adventure, and that, in theory, you can finish an army and then just use it to play each week. Also, you can wargame regardless of who shows up, but getting a sufficient group to show up regularly for gaming is almost impossible with my gaming buddies. I'm unfulfilled in my gaming thirst, but convenience often trumps everything else.

Regarding a "Conan" type of campaign, it's worth remembering that you don't have to have weak magic to do this type of campaign. You just have to restrict the ease with which PCs can access magic. I myself have wanted to do a Conan type campaign, and have run Lankhmar (Fritz Lieber) campaigns in the past (in D&D, Hero, and GURPS). Magic isn't weak in Lankhmar (in the novels), but it is rare and impressive. You might consider some of the following ideas In Lankhmar, magic is very difficult, time consuming, and labor intensive to learn, so there are little to no "adventuring" wizards (much as we have few say, mercenary quantum physicists). Also, magic there tends to associate itself with bizarre and strange forces, to make magic users both mistrusted and feared. In addition, it does apparently put a strain on the mind as virtually all of the magic users are demented, evil, or otherworldly. Other than the most powerful of wizards, magic seems more suited to elaborate ritual and enchantment than "spell-throwing". Magic items are not unknown, but virtually no wizard will be able to cast an offensive spell in a combat time frame (though some have enchanted wands to do so, or create other types of combat focused magic). These types of restrictions may create an interesting world for you to consider. PC wizards will be rare (or you may even forbid them entirely). On the other hand, you could encounter summoned demons, spell-traps, enchanted items, and even magical locales and phenomenon (in Lankmar, the stars are enchanted gems transported across the sky on waterspouts on the equatorial ocean--maybe). This allows you, as a GM, a great deal of latitude for creativity, but also allows you to make plans without the disruptions of clever PC spell use. You can have a wizard antagonist, who puts the PCs into peril, but not have to worry about the odd ESP spell or whatever disrupting carefully plotted storylines. It will, of course, be very unpopular with people used to D&D who want to play spellcasters. Once again, Lankhmar does have some options. In one of the first (chronologically) stories, the Mouser is trained by a white hedge wizard. Glavas Rho is scorned as a hedge wizard because he focuses on little magics like treating injury, easing childbirth, dealing with pests and poxes instead of the deadly and arcane sorceries people associate with wizards. He does, however, caution his apprentice that to do violence to others requires you to distill your own hatred and malice, and only the most strong-willed men can do so without bringing about doom on their own heads (and even then, only for a short time). This would allow you to have PC spellcasters who could aid the party (healing, defense, perhaps information) and other spell-casters who might cast offensive spells, but must be very careful about them. You might want to make spell-casting based on an EGO roll, and have a major side effect (perhaps a mind/spirit transform) when that EGO roll is failed, and the caster can't control his own violence and anger. With such major side effects, you might allow "black" magicians to have higher active point values on their spells (this would further the distinction between sorcery and petty magic). Note that also, in Lankmar, priests are members of a profession and not spell-casters. Some are good, some are evil, some are faithful, some are charlatans, but the gods don't grant them any powers. In Lankhmar, an atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in the gods (as they obviously exist), but doesn't pay them any attention because they are irrelevant (and nicely enough, the gods of Lankmar only have power over their own followers). This is all a long digression, but I wanted to emphasize that you can do a "high magic" world without having "D&D" magic that is accessible, approachable, and available to the PCs.

While this is true, it is also true of other attributes in the HERO system. "No one" buys a 12 Dex, or a 17 Con. Why? Because there are no game benefits from buying them. However, there is little to no argument about the flaws of the system there. Most everyone accepts that you should expect to see the scores cluster around "break" points, rather than follow some sort of more normal statistical curve, centered on average stats. I still don't see why people accept one sort of mathematical gamesmanship but decry another. Furthermore, for sheer combat effectiveness, all players should simply buy 5, 10, or 15 points of RKA. Why don't they do this? After all, it's in the rulebook. The reason why they don't do it is because they are not allowed to do so by the conventions, guidelines, and rules that the GM has set up. Despite RKA being a "book legal" power, you can't buy it. Thus, do the same with Strength. Simply tell people that you are not going to allow them to have an 18 (or a 23 strength). You might allow one player, with the strongest concept for it, to have such a high strength, but disallow it for all other players, so as to avoid them "stepping on the character concept" (stealing his thunder by also being exceptional in the same way). Thus, you maintain the "aura" of coolness about a high strength without forbidding it outright. You might disallow it out of RARITY (which doesn't normally factor into Hero costs, unlike GURPS). Ambidexterity is rare, and shouldn't be allowed for every single character in the group, nor lightsleep, etc. You could restrict high strengths in this way to make the group better reflect a gathering of adventurers, rather than weightlifters. You might allow characters to increase their strength, but perhaps only allow them to buy it up slowly, regardless of the cost in points. This would allow you to have incredibly strong characters once they are experienced and battle-hardened, without having a bunch of green recruits all storming around with 18 Str. I don't think that the mechanic is broken, but I will wholeheartedly agree that the implementation is almost certainly busted. However, points costs shouldn't substitute for GM discretion. If you don't want someone/everyone to have an ability/attribute/skill/power, don't make it unattractively expensive, don't allow them to take it. This is no more "abusive" or "unfair" than telling a PC that you don't have mind flayers or drow in your campaign, so they can't play one (shows D&D roots).

Although these have been covered to a certain extent by others on this post, I would like to really emphasize two key arguments against changing the rules to "balance" the swashbuckler against the knight. Given that you are comparing a knight who can spend a smaller portion of his character points on needed Attributes (mostly strength) vs. a swashbuckler who has to spend many more points on Dexterity: First, you complain that since the armor is "free" (doesn't cost any character points) therefore it makes the knight character concept more combat effective than the swashbuckler. This is true. It also means that the character who takes a longbow is more effective than the one who doesn't have a missile weapon. It means the one with a weapon is more effective than the one without a weapon. The one with a rope and grapnel is more effective (at pit exiting) than the one without a rope and grapnel. Equipment is supposed to make a character more effective. That's why it is lugged around. You could, if you chose, make all your character buy their weapons and armor as in a Champions campaign if it is really important to you that characters whose "concept" is more spartanly equipped be equally effective to the character who chooses to have more equipment. Second, you are ONLY comparing the effectiveness in COMBAT of the swashbuckler and the Knight. There are two important sub-points here: First is that the swashbuckler's expenditures of points are useful in many other situations rather than straight damage dealing. He has higher DEX rolls for skill usage, and ability checks. The fighter has spent less points, but Strength is less useful in other situations. Second is that it is the GM's responsibility to make sure that characters who are not as effective in combat are given other opportunities to shine. It is no more fair to complain that the swashbuckler isn't as effective in combat as the Knight than it would be to complain that the wizard, or the thief, isn't as effective in combat as the knight. Perhaps the player of the swashbuckler CONCEIVED of his character being just as dangerous in close combat as the knight, but again, who is to say that the guy who designed the lockpicking thief didn't CONCEIVE of his character as being just as deadly in combat as the knight (my dextrous fingers allow me to thrust the pick into his eye!). Regardless of player "conception", at some point actual DESIGN of the character must be considered. If you are going to have a game where big heavy weapons wielded by strong men do lots of damage, and big heavy armor protects you from lots of damage, then strong men wielding big heavy weapons and wearing big heavy armor are going to win the damage dealt vs. damage sustained ratio game. If you abandon that idea, then aren't you just changing the "conception bias" from the armored knight to the unarmored swashbuckler? What about the player who felt that being strong, wielding a huge sword, and wearing heavy armor should make his character relatively effective in a fight?

I'd second the suggestion of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, for one big reason....Chaos! One of the best aspects of Warhammer is the pernicious roles of both cultists and witch-hunters. Even without magic, you can have cults that BELIEVE in magic, and either are simply evil/corrupt/satanic (again see Brotherhood of the Wolf) or are determined to change the status quo (for the better or worse). You can also introduce witch-hunters, the Inquisition, religious fanaticism, etc. The whole notion of "chaos warriors/marauders" invading from the hinterlands works very well, even without actual demons, too. Something else I would recommend is Fritz Lieber's Lankhmar series. While his world is very magical, the magic isn't portable/convenient/reliable, so that his heroes must usually make do with wit and courage. Their theivery is quite an adventure into itself; don't be too constrained to make the heroes Robin Hoods, as simply being in it for the money is quite fun. While a lot of the adventures involve fantastic semi-human races, they also involve mountain-climbing, duelling, fleeing from pygmy assassins, seducing women, robbing other thieves, foiling (or instigating) plots, etc. For my money, Fafhrd and the Mouser are the greatest heroes out there, as they have a complete and utter lack of the "extras" that other heroes get (magical goodies, fate, destiny, unshakeable moral convictions, divine guidance) and make their way with humor, wits, luck, and good looks, as well as being really good at fighting.

For the older, wiser Kid Cyclone, you might try "Hurricane", which has a meaner, and less poetic, ring to you (and echoes Hurricane Carter, the black boxer). In your weird mystic, you said you wanted a "good man as monster" stereotype, so perhaps you might like: Yeti, a fur-bound semi brick with eastern meditational powers (astral projection, etc) The Pharoah (mystic with Egyptian flavor, perhaps able to split into the traditional egyptian "soul distinctions" (ka, ba, etc). a heroic vampire (in the mold of vampirella or Morbius). No name for this one, but fairly easy to write up. the Apparition, normally desolid, but able to manifest and affect the physical world for limited periods of time (buy the +2 affects physical world advantage on your strength, but limit the advantage to cost End. This would make an interesting "Deadman" type hero who doesn't have to possess others (of course, Deadman himself is cool). some sort of witch. This gives you a female character, and someone with a repetoire of many spells. She's a pagan, rather than a satanist, so she can both clash with organized religions, and combat demonic evils. (Note that I've done a bigfoot, a mummy, a vampire, a ghost, and a witch). For outcasts, consider an alien very strongly. Especially if you pick an obvious, but not overtly threatening looking alien (say a traditional Grey, or a Rom, Space Knight type), this seems to fit the seventies very well. You really want the outcast to be able to function as the conscience of the group, much like the Martian Manhunter does at times. His/Her/Its ability to comment on the foibles of humanity seems particularly 70's. A grey (little alien, big head) with telepathic powers, or some sort of space paladin (like Rom) seems really appropriate.

Gotrek comments Well, he's not really complete without including his axe, but I'll let that slide. However, there are some other areas that I would quibble with. Gotrek's Presence should be much lower, as he isn't charming, persuasive, etc. He resists Presence attacks with his massive Ego (and you might consider a higher one, or Presence limited for that purpose). He's very capable of intimidating others, but most of his Presence dice come from his insanely violent and actively homicidal nature (although you could buy extra presence dice for that limited purpose too). I'm not sure that you could justify "scholar" for Gotrek in any way other than "saving a few points". I'm a big fan of skills (I love GURPS, can't help it), but I do think that Gotrek should certainly have WF with some seige weapons, considering his experiences at Praag and elsewhere. I also think he would likely know Tactics, as well as Survival (at least Mountains). He seemed to be a capable climber, and I would also rate his knowledge of History and engineering as better than a 12-. Considering his extensive experience with fighting, martial arts would not be amiss, as he is extremely adept at parrying with the axe, as well as using it both one and two handed. Fast-draw Axe would also seem to be reasonable. Also, Gotrek is much, much tougher than your write-up gives him credit for. The combat luck damage resistance is a good idea, but Gotrek has survived wounds that surely would have killed a lesser hero. I'm not sure how to represent that well, although perhaps Damage Reduction, Body Only, with an activation roll (or luck based) might be acceptible. After all, he has emerged from combats with dozens of cuts and wounds, but still unbowed. I wouldn't apply it to stun as he's been knocked unconscious before (even a single sling stone). Not only are Gotrek's senses keener than those of a human, but he can see quite well at night, too. Don't forget that. I'm not a proponent of Dex inflation, but the 18 dex seems a little high, as Gotrek doesn't seem unusually dextrous, just unusually lethal. You might perhaps want to add more Combat Skill Levels to the mix, instead. The resistance to alcohol would be life support rather than environmental movement (probably a typo/error). Other limitations would also include: (I'm assuming the Seeks a mighty doom restriction only covers seeking out deadly foes and defeating them in combat, without retreat) Refuses to use missile weapons (not an aspect of all slayers, as the Slayer Engineer Malakai seemed willing to use them) Honor of Dwarfs (will never break his word) Social Limitation (Rude and blunt) Social Limitation (Secret Shame): we have no idea what led Gotrek to become a slayer, but he seems violently unwilling to discuss it. This may not be a secret, but a psych lim instead. DNPC (Felix, almost as competent, all the time) I'm unsure if Gotrek is actually Cursed, as he seems instead to be under a mighty doom (that is, he will die, in fulfilling some great destiny or heroic accomplishment). This isn't much of a disadvantage, as in game terms, he is almost destined to survive anything thrown at him until he comes upon his doom. As famous and famously violent as Gotrek is, he certainly needs a reputation (perhaps both as a bonus and a limitation). This would also aid his presence attacks. I like the writeup overall, despite all these comments, but I do feel that Gotrek is quite the epic character (especially once you add in that axe). He is capable of going toe to toe with a Bloodthirster, so he should be capable of dispatching even superheroic foes (that would deign to fight him hand to hand, rather than shooting/mindcontrolling/transforming him).

Killing the King in Yellow As I'm unfamiliar with your game world, but familiar with the literary character of the King in Yellow, I'd normally assume that you are completely doomed. However, since the "real" King in Yellow would never be so easily thwarted as being stunned and buried, I'm assuming that your GM hasn't actually made him a full power avatar of Him Who Shall Not Be Named (Hastur, oops). As gating is possible in your campaign, I'd suggest gating him to a dimension where time has no meaning, thus "imprisoning" him forever. Alternatively, if he is a mystical character, you might try to gate him to some area which is antithetical to his being. In the published stories of Hastur, he is often presented as being entropic in nature, so perhaps a dimension of perfect order, etc. Depending on the influence of mythology in your campaign, you might be able to make an appeal/bargain with another being opposed to Hastur/willing to take you up on it. Again, if the campaign follows the published mythology, the Elder Gods, such as Nodens, might be willing to intercede on your behalf. You might also try to get a single player to appeal to someone such as Nyarlathotep, which would probably doom him, but may save the rest of the party. Combating the King in Yellow in dreams may also be a viable option, as the "reality" of the Dreamlands (if they exist in your campaign) is more malleable than that of reality. Also on this note, journeying to Carcosa itself (the source of at least one manifestation of the King) to confront him/follow the encounter through to completion, may be possible in dreams (or in the real world of your campaign). Note that ripping the pallid mask from the King would normally be considered a bad idea, but may be, in your game world, the confrontation necessary to defeat the King. Finally, the King in Yellow is the title of a (fictitious) play which drives those who read/witness it to depression, despair, and insanity (at least in the published stories). Perhaps you could destroy any first editions of this play (if it exists in your world) to negate the power of the King. Telll us more about the campaign and I, or others, may be able to offer some more suggestions. These are overly broad and perhaps completely out of tune with your game world, but certainly tie in with the literary figure of the King in Yellow (although, again, if he's anything like the "real" King in Yellow, you're simply doomed.)

This has probably been posted before, but I couldn't locate it with a Forum search, so: More for my own edification than for game use, how DO you write up Wolverine's regeneration? Most specifically, I'm looking for the X-Men "movie regeneration" rather than that from the comic books. Let me lay out what I perceived as it's defining characteristics, so that anyone with a good idea might be able to model it. Logan regenerates rapidly, but not immediately, from his wounds. The bullet to the head takes some time to heal. Logan recovers from every individual injury quite rapidly. It doesn't appear that multiple "minor" injuries are as threatening as a single major injury. He loses consciousness in the wreck, in the Sabertooth fight, when impaling himself to escape, and when shot in the head, but the many, many cuts inflicted by Deathstrike seem to heal very rapidly (during the course of the combat), and any injuries caused by the soldier's shooting were gone by the time the combat was over. This is the most difficult part for me to simulate, as HERO normally represents BODY healing as recovering points of total BODY lost, rather than healing every single BODY injury. Logan is susceptible to stunning (and seems to recover stun slower than Body). He remains unconscious for quite some time following his first fight with Sabertooth, and his "brush" with Rogue. However, he does recover much more quickly from normal attacks than others. Lady Deathstrike's claws and the soldier's bullets pain him, but don't seem to inconvenience him severely. He recovers from toxins quite rapidly. The paralysis darts used on the others don't seem to work. This might simply be bought as immunity to "this, that, and the other", but I'm unsure if his resistance is that quick, or if he should recover attributes from Drain Attribute attacks. He doesn't seem to tire easily. He seems to wake up from unconsciousness and have plenty of energy (e.g. END). He grabs Jean immediately upon awakening, and then strides down the halls of the mansion. He certainly doesn't appear winded (although little of this uses END). Healing (BODY & Stun) doesn't seem to work too well, as there appears to be no upper limit of body damage that Logan can heal (as all of his injuries heal until they are gone). From the movie it is unclear if he would actually recover from death, but as Lady Deathstrike has apparently similar abilites, and was apparently killed, it would appear that he does not. In addition, Healing, even if always on, is apportioned out between injuries, rather than healing every single injury simultaneously (it would appear, for example, that Logan heals from 6 3 point wounds faster than 1 18 Body wound, but just as fast as from 1 3 BODY wound). Note that his cigar burn takes at least as much time to heal as the presumably more lethal attacks of Deathstrike. Regeneration doesn't seem to work, as it also applies to total BODY lost, rather than per wound, plus, getting it up to heal Logan rapidly would require an ENORMOUS amount of regeneration, as he can evidently heal from what would otherwise be mortal blows in a matter of seconds. Any solution that seems to reflect Logan's abilities seems ridiculously high-powered, but Logan's regeneration doesn't, on the surface, seem too powerful. He can be hurt, easily (like with a cigar), he can be rendered unconscious (with a single bullet, no less), he can be knocked unconscious for a substantial amount of time (at least the travel time from the site of the Sabertooth ambush to Westchester), and can evidently be killed by sufficently deadly attacks (like molten adamantium, so possibly even by burning or caustic agents). Can you think of a way to represent this without a total boatload of points?

I'm more interested in this as a survey than as a complex justification, but... I've noticed a lot of official HERO supplements using the "Dispel Device" power to represent breaking a device (such as a motorcycle helmet in UMA). To me, this seems unnecessary and a bit finicky, as any attack capable of doing BODY damage should be capable of breaking a breakable Focus (or any other object), given enough damage. I realize that sometimes the power may be written up to reflect an ability to rust/melt/mutate/fold/spindle/mutilate an item, but it seems often written up simply to reflect smacking something until it breaks. Do many GMs actually require their PCs to pay for this sort of power, in addition to normal attacks capable of exerting force on objects? I mean, regardless of how often the PC breaks stuff, unless he wants to be really, really efficient at breaking things, isn't a use of an attack sufficient? It almost like requiring Teleportation (must cross intervening area) to allow PC's to open a door and walk through. Do any GM's find that allowing PCs to simply break things with their own Strength, rather than possessing "breaking things" powers is unbalancing to their campaign? Is there some reason for writing this power up that I am not seeing (i.e., not a "breaking things" ability that doesn't depend on force, or generates more force than the PC's strength and attacks would suggest)?