Galadorn

I agree. As I stated before, combat luck that is psychokinetic or divine interventionally special effected; or has other magical, divine or psionic special effects, is hard to justify limiting or hampering.

True, but very expensive as well. My comments are all relative to my campaign, btw, so I am accepting or discounting based on that criteria. The power levels for magic spells in my campaign are: Wizards/Priests: 30 pt.s Bards/Divine Magic Layperson: 15-20 pt.s Ranger/Paladin: 10-15 pt.s As you can see, every PC has magic available to them - but they don't have to take it. Typical prime spellcaster (bard/cleric/wizard) has: Multipower VPP (5 pt.s) Defenses: Outside the Multipower, plus sometimes defenses in the multipower that stack. So I'm dealing with a limited power level here, and limited points. Most characters have skill levels, perks or talents, that couple with multipower slots. It's like Legos for HERO, modularity personified.

First, if a GM wanted to make a "no stack" rule, then he should put it out there in the beginning. I don't think any surprises should be left for players to discover as far as game rules go - except maybe mystery damage. Secondly, I'm not getting into a calculus metric when it comes to designing Hero Game rules, I find this boring. I opt for very few optional rules, as far as my Fantasy Hero game goes. Thirdly, I allow stacking, definately. But I am thinking about the "doesn't add with natural armor" limitation when it comes to magic armor spells. I don't want an Iron Man PC Wizard in powered armor, walking about, either. Fourthly, I think many of these rules are particular to a campaign. I run a 50+50 campaign, and with the limited point total on characters, I add a few new optional rules. For my part of the fun of the game IS character and power design. I actually award experience points for a creative or very creative use of the VPP - both powers design wise and for cultural appropriateness of the power created.

Yes the second attack is more powerful, there is no question about that. But it is also true that, that attack is more expensive - making it prohibitive to a standard heroic campaign. First, I agree on this point. Second, I can't discuss much past this point, because I allow Multipower Frameworks and VPPs in my campaign - and we would be getting into apples of oranges. Thirdly, NND in an fantasy hero campaign I find unrealistic, that is a Medieval Fantasy Hero campaign. Medieval campaigns that use NNDs instead of killing attacks, I find too comic booky. A hallmark of fantasy, is that your opponents DIE when defeated, not get knocked unconscious so you can arrest them. NNDs are mostly a comic book, or twenty-first century, phenomena. Just as police weaponry has a trend of being non-lethal (rubber bullets, projectile nets, tazers, etc,), so NNDs have come to the fore.

Re: Kobolds (Hieraxian) Draft 2 Well, if you are going to be a D&D-file, kobolds wouldn't have these tails. I don't know why people are so D&D focused - The Hero System offers alot more versatility then D&D, and offers the framework to build better characters. Though I can say I don't like the character designs put forth, most of the time. Thats AD&D, 3.5 has them alot smarter (10 INT, I believe). I can't say they do. Never heard of these. I think that Urd and Monk kobolds are cheesy. Monks are far too sophisticated a class for kobolds to belong to. Urds are just a pandering by game creators to make higher-powered kobolds, in my book. Give me the straight (and clever) kobolds, with roguish tendencies, and trap mastery.

Well, that makes NND a useless power. It won't be in my arsenals anymore. And now, I remember why I skip this modifier, all together. Secondly, you are dodging the fact that an "attack vs. evil only," is limited - based on the prevelance of evil opponents most campaigns. Maybe not your campaign, but most campaigns. Is it that GMs hate it when players are smarter then they are? I, as a GM, don't. Some players are smarter then me in some things, and far dumber in others. From now on when I want a mega-attack that effects most characters, I will buy it based on limited defense - ego or power defense - NND is useless. Ego attack is a better bet for the points; as ego defense is not a common defense, and the point cost of NND and Ego Attack is the same.

O.k. Yes, true to an extent. But you can also target the area of effect so one hex includes the door and the doors framework. Also, sometimes you don't care about the walls. Secondly, sometimes a pc might have the defense against the pc casters spell: Like 10rED versus fire. Well the defense being "not being evil," is not an uncommon defense - it's a common defense.

My general problem is that people start adding rules to their homegame, instead of adding limitations to magical powers or talents. I try not to make the Hero Rules do "loop-dee-loops."

I don't like the "no stack" rule. It doesn't seem realistic. I look at it this way: when the starship Enterprises's shields go down, does the hull loose it's tinsel strength? Why not just make the wizard shield spell with the disadvantage "doesn't work with armor." Then you force the player to make a choice, and can justify it through your magical system. See why D&D had these limitations? O.K. they do something right, at least by your perspective.

Hierax, I like the tracking scent power, gives a good image. But I like kobolds smarter then an 8 INT, I look at kobolds as not only tricksters, but professional trapsters.

I like the package deals.

Re: Combat Reflexes and Armor Seems balanced, but not necessarily logical (see my comments below). Game balance is the GM's responsibility. But, I would find the rationale of "suddenly you get unlucky because you're wearing heavy armor" line, a bit tedious. Of course this would depend heavily upon what rationale the character has for his combat luck - a good reflexes rationale would make loosing combat luck in heavy armor, appropriate. A divine intervention, or psychokenetic rationale would not allow taking away combat luck, in my book. Of course, you could only allow combat luck, based on the fast reflexes line.

I had one last thought, what happens when your evil villians figure out that the pc's spell effects only evil, and starts sending legions of grizzly bears at them? Sounds like a weakness the villain can take advantage of...

There are more creatures in a typical campaign then just evil foes. There are also: doors to get through, locks to break, wagon wheels to disable, manacles to escape, etc. This effects only evil spell is useless against these obstacles, unless those objects are sentient and evil, or enchanted with evil magic, through and through. And whens the last time you targeted an area of effect spell on your party members? I did it once, because I knew the npc would survive the attack (though be knocked unconscious) - and the agents surrounding her would be defeated. That's once in twenty-four years of playing hero games...

That's my exact point Rick. There are five types of characters you can't effect - assuming the GM is using these types of creatures, and thinking in these terms: 1. Good creatures. 2. Neutral characters. 3. Non-sentient animals, and wild creatures. 4. Inanimate objects. 5. Automatons (no one thought of this before). And of course the spell can effect: 6. Evil creatures. Sounds like a limitation to me. There are generally six groups of creatures - and you can only effect one. What does this say to you? If you want look through your adventure records (if you have any) and count the moral disposition of the creatures the party fought. See what you came up with and tell me what you think. If you don't keep adventure records, count the morality of your monsters, in the next five adventures.

Thanks Liaden.

If you want monsters, the fourth edition Bestiary has better designed monsters. But FCH1 has great art for some of the monsters, such as the orcs, half-orcs, hobgoblins and goblins pic. I think that pic is awesome. I agree, they were one of my favorite parts of the book.

Yeppers. But it depends on the deity, some evil ones would probably have a spell like this in their inventory.

I was just playing, being a little bit facitious. But seriously, I want that spell too. Yeah...

Ummmmm, I want one! Where is this store, and does it have a website? LOL. I lost my FHC1 years ago, I want a replacement!

Well, if you are on a certain school of moral philosophy, anyone who is not good is evil - period - there are no neutrals. Of course, this only affects those who have conciously chosen their moral direction - those who are "invincibly ignorant," are true neutrals. Invincible ignorance is: you have not been told about good, or the path of good (i.e. what behaviors, intentions and thoughts are good). But if you have been told about what is good, and reject that good - you are now evil. I'm not getting into a moral philosophy seminar here, but which neutrals are you talking about, the invincibly ignorant neutrals who don't know any better? Or the neutrals who know better, but just claim to be neutral?

FHC1 had locations mostly, such as a lord's manor, wizard's tower, etc.

I totally agree. Exactly. But this, of course, depends on the GM forecasting what his campaign will be like ahead of time. It may be, for a time, that orcs are disproportionately represented in the campaign - and players may complain, since one player has a "kills orcs always" spell. But this may be true for only five sessions, then the campaign may go back to normal. So it's over the total life of the campaign that we need to think about, not just a few play sessions.

Ummmmmm I believe I said that. This is where I referred to the relative nature of each campaign. Do people listen nowadays? I didn't say pages, I said monsters. Geesh, I wonder what percentage of the time that players encounter orcs? To be explicitly clear, for those who don't seem able to follow: it depends on the campaign. But in many campaigns, at least the ones I have played in, quite often (say 50%) of the time players encounter non-evil monsters. Whether in the form of a pet of an arch-villian, or in the form of random encounters to spice things up, or in the form of a thrall of the Dark Lord Sauron - for example. 50% of the monsters encountered being non-evil, would justify a -1/2 limitation. But it depends on the particular campaign.

It's a disdvantage, I think. Go through the Hero Bestiary and count how many monters (undead, ordinary animals, etc.) could be term "good", and how many could be termed neutral or evil. I think this exact thing for the Fantasy Hero Companion III (Second Edition) - if i remember correctly it was 24 "evil" - including orcs. hoibgoblins. etc. - 10 good and 26 neutral. Less then half the existing monsters were evil - sounds like a limitation to me. Since most people seem to be visual learners here's visualization of why its a limitation: This is why "only works versus evil," is a limitation. Secondly, I don't care what he said - it was implicit in my statements that I don't agree with what he said, since I didn't validate his statement. That's only if you are running a straight-forward good vs. evil campaign. Sometimes the "bad" guys, are neutral-aligned grizzlies.