Galadorn

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying? You could also keep the active point levels for attacks down, this would force players to spread their points around. You don't have to limit the character points in this case.

Re: Medieval Wages The best period for High Fantasy I think is 1283-1299 in England. This was a colonizing period, and alot of castles were built. But there was also alot of Wilderness era left. I try to place all my games in a concrete Medieval time frame, so it makes it easy reference work for me. All I have to do is look up technology or law in this time Period and I'm set.

Re: Alignments

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look No it wouldn't. It would pierce right through the shield and armor, both. You think it matters that you have a deflection device, when the material the deflective device is made of, cannot stop the projectile? That would make no sense... Now for game purposes, we call a bow is like any bow, and arrow is like any arrow, and a shield is like any shield. This is to avoid myriad rules on different weapons and armor. But in reality and historically, it's a whole different ball of wax...

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look Speaking from a real-world reality matrix: I think the example I gave of the longbow arrow piercing through full armor and a horse, would mean that it will pierce through shield and armor, as well. Given that most shields in the Middle Ages were made of wood, sometimes with a thin metal overlay.

Re: The great armour race...

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

Re: The great armour race...

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look Your rule was unclear to me, except something about the dramatic sense of things. Which is fine. But I said a GOOD game, and drama is part of a good game, I would say. But to me, a good game includes many other elements: Creative and efficient character design and development. Balanced and challenging antagonists, that don't rely of 5000 points to be scary. Familiarization with the rules enough to play a sort of "chess" game with resistant defenses and killing attacks. This prolongs attacks: "Now you take 2 body, and you miss the arch-villian." (The PC knows he is in trouble). "Now you take another 4 body, and you miss the arch-villian again."(Tension builds) "You finally hit the villian, and stab into his shoulder doing some damage. But, you take 3 body." (Tension builds some more). Etc. In short, incremental combat (i.e. instead of "he hits you and your dead!"). This is exactly what happened in Medieval Times, until the advent of guns. Knights on armor were feared. Why? Very little could penetrate the armor of a knight in plate armor, except a longbow arrow, a pick on a pickaxe, and a few other weapons. In short, common soldiers would run away from a knight, in many instances. The average soldier simply couldn't effectively attack him, one on one, or even three on one.

Re: The great armour race... Heroic fantasy generally doesn't worry about the details. Did Aragorn and Gandalf get frostbite when they crossed through the snowy mountains? Heroic fantasisits generally don't sweat the details. But there is another realistic Fantasy sub-genre that sometimes does (Druss the Legend, ala.). How heroic is this? "You die from frostbite, sorry Sauron wins." Now low fantasy is another story all together.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look I think this illustrates a cogent point. There is no logical reason, based on physics, why a forcefield would not stack with armor. This can ruin the suspension of disbelief for many. Of course you should take an additional dex penalty (including figured DCV penalties) for wearing such clumsy assembled armor. I agree, this is what I am trying to avoid in my game. And I think the best way to achieve it, is with a "gentleman's agreement." For the sake of the game, don't stack on super-high defenses, unless it's part of a character concept (i.e. magically impervious character). Second of all, I think people have forgotten the economies of scale in Hero. So what if the character has 14 rPD and 22 nPD? Hit him with a bigger attack! If you're throwing kobolds with daggers at such a character, your scenario deserves to be laughed at! And I think this comes to my first option: power levels restrict super-high defenses, because GMs and players alike, want a GOOD game. Im my twenty-some years of playing hero, this has worked excellently well.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs? This could be done in a Multi-Power as well, for about the same cost.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs? I think you will learn the frustration some GMs have with VPPs. Here is a list of the reasons for, and against VPPs, said by many or none at all: Reasons For: Paradigmic Transcience: VPPs allow flexibility. A GM is not trapped into a certain spell list, or a static Framework of powers. Gap Rule:VPPs allow powers or advantages to be created "on the fly." If a player could justifiably have a certain attack, defense or power, but the GM didn't consider that possibility, VPPs allow the GM to have instant flexibility in allowing the character to have a power that the GM didn't consider in the first place. Modularity: VPPs allow a character to have all the powers he thinks his character should have, without spending massive points to gain them all. For example, a character have a 30 point multipower, and 30 powers he wants his character to have. 30 pt.s + 3 pt.s per ultra-slot = 120 pt.s For 45 pt.s a character can buy a VPP that covers all possible variations, without the 75 extra points cost. Then the player can mix and match VPP powers to magnify or add modifiers to an existing multipower or elemental control, or for some extra wallop, to his attacks. Thus the character can mix and match until he comes up with an ideal, and appropriate, power. Reasons Against: Scenario Transience: VPPs allow for infinite variations of powers. Accounting for all these possible powers, can make scenerio design nearly impossible. "Hunt and Peck:" VPPs allow for varying special effect (depending on the VPPs rationale), thus opening up rotating special effects in an effort to find a enemy characters susceptabilities and vulnerabilities.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs? And this is why we have power levels for our games, so an occurence like this can't happen. And why I structure my spell-casters magic as I stated above (Multi, VPP, Defenses, etc.) And give an active point limit to mage spells. BTW, 75+75 IS a power limit in itself. Secondly, it's not total flexibility I want my spell-casters to have, just someflexibility (5pt. VPP in a 30 active point game). I had a character with a 30pt. VPP, in one Champs game. And he could almost do anything. On the big approach to our fellow NPC protagonist's spaceship, where I was supposed to be inside our spaceship going "Ooooh, and Ahhh!" with my fellow PCs, I instead teleported outside (I had sufficient life support) and FTL'd to NPC's ship. Then I put on my full presence effect (120 PRE) and presenced this supposed "demi-god" out. Well my character was an angel! LOL. 30 points of this presence was from my VPP. And yes, from the GM's point of view, it probably ruined the effect he wanted to give. But my character was an angel! Probably a demigod in his own right, so to speak. And I guess a more impressive demigod, at that! Of course this was Champs and not FH, and these were the early (and lucious) days of VPPs. That's true. But there is a limit to what powers you can come up in 30 seconds, which is the usual time period a player in my game has between actions. Come on, how hard can creating and obeying rules be?

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look Well, I think there must be a solution. But pat rules like this don't address the issue. I have no problem with saying a certain level of defense, isn't available to players. Was there armor better the plate armor in the middle ages? Nope. The high defenses simply aren't available rule, is sounding pretty good and justifiable right now...

Re: How do you handle Str magic and End?

Re: How do you handle Str magic and End? Me too. The "END Monster" was a problem in earlier editions of Hero Games. The END Monster was the systematic drain on a characters end, so much so that he could barely fight two turns without running on empty (burning stun instead). I prefer the 10/1 rule myself.

Re: building villains It's up to your GM. In Normals Unbound, there was a villian who could be defeated through a susceptability to love. That's right, if two parents showed up who loved their child, the villian would start taking stun. So I guess in this circumstance, you can see why there is not hard and fast rule. I think a better guide is active points in villian powers. If a villian has 50 active points in attacks, but has 250 character points, he might have all his points spread out into different special effects. If the PCs come along with 100 point characters, and 75 active points in attacks, they will probably wipe the floor with the villian, depending on susceptabilities, vulnerabilities and other factors. Fantasy Hero is a Universal Roleplaying System, this means the key word for Hero is "flexibility." The problem with flexibility is that a system can be too flexible, so much so that GMs and players alike find the system hard to standardize. I think this is what the present D&D does better than Hero with the new monster challenge ratings system. I know if I put a CR 2 (Challenge Rating 2) monster against a group of four 1st characters, for the most part they will be challenged. If I put a CR4 monster against these same characters, they will be defeated - most likely. That's one weakeness I think FH has compared to D&D, lack of standardization. While standardization can feel canned after a while, GMs can always adjust the standardized monsters to suit their needs.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs? If i were you, I would pick an archetype, i.e. what do you want wizards to be able to do. How is magic going to look, function and act? I would decide this before I design a spell. Then with the give and take of spell design (too much cost, not limiting enough, etc,), work out the details within the Hero System. First, minor special effects for Gandalfs "firey cones of doom" are not that minor. Gandalf's firey cones spell would have killed the warg, if the goblins had not come along and put out the worg's coats. Secondly, cantrips are much more useful in my campaign than just heating a pot of coffee. I have spells like: 1. Alter Self (Disguise +1) 2. Charming (Persuasion +1) 3. Light (5pt.s of Images) These are far more useful than heating a coffee pot, and are capped at 5 active points per cantrip. I also allow skills as cantrips to be far more useful, simply because they are magic. So a wizard with Alter Self could instantly alter his appearance to a high degree of detail. For instance, he could change his hair and beard color, put a fake wart on his nose and make tears, and holes in his robes and make his robes dirty as well. With Alter Self I allow anything short of instant change, simply because it is justified by the spell's special effect rationale. So while the wizard could do the above alterations, he could not change the material his robe was made of (cotton to wool), the functionality of his robe (summer wear to winter wear), or the clothing items he was wearing (robe, to tunic and pants). But anything short of that is allowed. So, as I'm sure you can see, cantrips in my game are far more useful than simply cooking bacon. I didn't remember that statement in FH, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs? Thanks. The point I think that has to be made, is that VPPs are limited by special effect. For your average wizard in my campaign, shapechanging is not possible. And each power has to be justified by a rationale that is relevant to the character's special effect. For example, for Gandalf to suddenly turn his nose into dogs nose, so he can sniff out the enemy is not a part of Gandalf's rationale for his special effect (divine archetypical magic). Not only is it gauche, it's downright silly. Now if the player could come up with a rationale for Gandalf to have enhanced smell (proxy animals sniff for him), that would work out fine. But I leave the burden of proof and rationale to the player. Putting the burden of proof on the player, has created some very interesting, subtle, and excellently justified spells from VPPs, in my experience . And making the player justify it is time consuming, I don't allow much time for the player to come up with a rationale. This usually happens between games. Of course, my VPPs are only five points at this point - not much of a threat to game balance.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look You're welcome.

Re: New Limitation: Does not Stack. Gm's please look

Re: Should FH wizards use VPPs? We've talked about frameworks alot in this discussion board. But I will restate the framework system I use in my campaign: 1. Multipower 30 pt.s 2. VPP 5 pt.s 3. Defenses (outside any framework) Starting character points for my campaign are 50+50. Active point caps on spells are (in almost all cases) 30 points. Why do I make players take a 5 pt. VPP? To facilitate effects: 1. Gandalf casting his sticky, continuous, multi-colored fire spell; like he did in the tree with the worgs surrounding him (the "Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire" Chapter). He used pine cones for this spell. 2. Gandalf casting non-detect spells on the treasure he and Bilbo hid at the end of The Hobbit. These are neat effects, I think: I think they give the Hobbit alot of color, richness and character. But, I'm not going to try to account for every miniscule spell that characters might have, and I don't expect them to either. Hence the VPP. Also the VPP can add points to an attack, provide needed defenses that are logically justifiable to a wizard in my campaign, but we forgot to account for. Also they provide some color and cultural development that will make the playing experience in my campaign, much better for players and GM, alike. Not only wizards have VPPs; but clerics, and spell-casting bards, as well.

Re: Do all Gm's use the Skill roll for magic? My experience is that I have never played in a campaign where the magic skill was not used, except a short-lived campaign of mine. The magic skill roll, while generally not used in the best of the fantasy genre, helps create tension in fantasy roleplaying. I can't remember a spell-casting attempt that didn't work in Tolkein or Le Guin, except early on in Le Guin. As I've said before, I don't think a person can exactly translate fantasy fiction conventions into roleplaying. I believe the magic skill roll is one of things that, while a quality and well-conceived disadvantage in roleplaying, just doesn't work high quality in fantasy fiction.