Galadorn

Originally posted by Rick

Since combat luck is based on being able to move about freely: I can see a GM limiting its use when in a situation that a character has limited movement. In armor a character has restricted movement, so it follows that the characters Combat luck wouldn't work. Now a wizard using some sort of force field is a little trickier.

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.

Originally posted by Rick

I've been imagining that most of these NND attacks have been of the Does Body (+1) variety. Which is very fantasy hero like.

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.

Originally posted by Nuke

You're comparing apples to oranges here I think. If you buy

 

8d6 EB, limitation only against evil

vs.

8d6 NND EB, defense is "don't be evil"

 

The latter is HUGELY more powerful against evil creatures. Don't forget they get no defenses!! That is a tremendous advantage. It's something I neglected to mention earlier in this discussion that everyone here needs to keep track of. The first example, those evil struck by the attack still apply all their defense, and might very well laugh the attack off. The second deals MAJOR damage to the evil foes and should be monitored very closely by the GM.

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.

Make sense? Just make sure you keep track of this. I see the "NND vs. Evil" being used in campaigns where there is a good balance of good/neutral/evil, and where the lines of morality are clear cut.

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

Originally posted by Hierax

Tail - just cosmetic now. Though I'll have some divinely inspired mutants with Prehensile Tails with poison stingers like the Kobold god.

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.

Intelligence: xDnD Kobolds are smarter than a lot of the bigger sword-fodder humanoids like Orcs, Kobolds "Average" INT, which is 8-10 ("Low" INT is 5-7 which I convert to Hero as 6 for things like Goblins, Orcs, Ogres, Hill Giants). The difference between 8 and 10 is small since the Skill roll is the same and the 2 points are needed for other things, like skills - say Familiarity with Teamwork and Tactics which makes them effectively "smarter" than if they just had 10 INT. They really don't need to be smarter than the average man, just cunning and using good tactics.

Thats AD&D, 3.5 has them alot smarter (10 INT, I believe).

Presence: looking at the list of skills that are PRE-based I'm not convinced that Kobolds need more PRE.

I can't say they do.

Tucker's Kobolds: I re-read it, FYI, it is in DRAGON #127 I've got an electronic text copy if anyone is interested.

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.

Originally posted by badger3k

"When a character purchases an NND, he must define a reasonably common Power or circumstance, or a set of uncommon Powers or circumstances, as the defense." p 171. - The first part applies.

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.

Originally posted by badger3k

Actually, with my group, the "fireball at the feet" ploy has been used at least 4 or 5 times this past year (various reasons, but their defenses stopped it mostly (or they just sucked up the damage) - now, the parties horses turned out to be another matter.... My restatement was, well, just that, a restatement of the ongoing argument.

O.k.

As for things like doors and manacles. Anyone using an area effect attack to take out a door is probably missing the point of the ability. Unless you're in a room full of doors, all within the radius, and you want them all destroyed at once, then that power is not the one you want used.

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.

I'll still stick with my original NND option, since that seems to fit the purpose/comcept of the spell as originally described.

Well the defense being "not being evil," is not an uncommon defense - it's a common defense.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

What about applying an automatic limitation on combat luck that you lose 1 rDEF for every 2 rDEF you have from other sources? After all, you don't need all that luck when you're encased in steel anyway, do you?

 

So if a character has 9/9 combat luck (awfully high, in my view), and wears 8 DEF Plate Mail, he loses 4 Combat Luck and ends up with 13 DEF. Your dwarf would have 6 DEF, since half the armor bonus equals the combat luck. If he wears lighter armor (say 4 DEF), he gets 1 point of combat luck remaining, for 5 DEF in total, so he still benefits from somewhat heavier armor.

 

Oh, he may whine a bit about the loss in vaue of his combat luck, but the first time he's attacked with no armor, he'll remember why he paid those CP's!

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."

Originally posted by Demonsong

It may seem a little harsh, but I do not allow any armor to stack in my Fantasy Hero Game at all! In cases of double armor like Chain Def: 6 and then a mage armor spell of some kind say Def: 10, you only get one, player’s choice. (I have to have a player pick the lowest) It has worked out really well so far. Then again I have some great players who are there for the fun and not just to power game

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.

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Kobolds again eh?

 

Here's a reprise on my version:

I like the package deals.

Re: Combat Reflexes and Armor

Originally posted by shinrin

I'm running a FH game where I have a player who is a dwarf fighter who wears a full suit of Banded Mail (6 DEF) and who has 1 Level of Combat Luck which gives him an additional 3 DEF which is Hardened. Does this seem balanced? He has been hard to hurt in combat unless I roll really high on the damage dice and a good hit location like Stomach or Vitals.

Seems balanced, but not necessarily logical (see my comments below).

I'm planning on making a House Rule of no more than 1 Level of Combat Luck as long as the total DEF in addition to Armor worn doesn't exceed 9 DEF. So a character who doesn't wear armor could have 3 Levels of Combat Luck. But what is to logically stop such a character from putting on armor after he buys 3 Levels of Combat Luck? To solve this I was thinking of requiring a Limitation on Combat Luck such as: Restricted By Armor, No More Than 9 DEF Total (-1/4)? Possibly reflecting that armor restricts the wearer's movement and reflexes?

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...

Originally posted by badger3k

The point being that a non-selective area effect EB would normally hit friend and foe. Having one that only strikes the foe would be an advantage in that case. In a normal power, it might be a normal limitation, again, depending on the campaign.

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...

Originally posted by Rick

It limits the usefulness of the power. An eb can effect everyone, so an eb that only effects evil characters limits the usefulness of the EB, thus making it a limitation. You can't use it against animals or nuetral characters, or for that matter what if you have to fight the good guys....

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.

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

If you don't mind ordering online, Noble Knight Games is advertising copies of 4E Fantasy HERO, Companion I and II, and the 4E HERO Bestiary. They're not as cheap as eBay can be, for example, but Noble Knight is a class operation that I recommend:

 

http://www.nobleknight.com

Thanks Liaden.

Originally posted by GrimJesta

Monster write-ups, eh? So I basically wont need the bestiary is what youre saying? Or is that book still a good idea? I dont need dinosaurs and aliens, just Fantasy beasties.

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.

But the locations thing is awesome. I need some of those as filler.

I agree, they were one of my favorite parts of the book.

Originally posted by Outsider

A really intolerant Deity's "affect evil" spell might even hit everyone who isnt one of his worshippers...

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

Originally posted by Nuke

It was a silly joke, that's all.

 

I won't argue the morality of it in real life terms, this is plainly a fantasy discussion. I would argue that the definitions of good/evil are deity dependent. So I could easily see one deity's "affect evil" spell hitting "neutral" characters where another's would not. Likewise for an evil deity's "affect good" spell.

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

I would say this is the job of the GM to determine at the campaign's deities views of "neutral" characters, or basically, those characters who have decided not to decide.

Yeah...

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

I'll check it out next time I'm in the store. I think it's in pretty good shape, and it might have been there ever since it first came out, even though it's over with a lot of used stuff.

 

Anyway, I'll get back to you.

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!

Originally posted by Nuke

I want to write up an attack that only affects neutral people...

 

"PICK A SIDE, DANGIT!"

 

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.

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

You dont reconfigure the conditional limitations of a Spell on the fly, so using a single encounter to make an argument in either direction is specious. What matters is the prevelance of a particular state in the bigger picture of the setting.

 

If a spell ONLY AFFECTS ORCS in a setting where Orcs compose only 2% of the total world population of potential opponents its quite obviously going to be useless a large portion of the time.

I totally agree.

If a GM allows you to load up on "Only Vs Orc" Spells and then constantly (or even just for a disproportionately large amount of encounters) uses Orcs as protagonists, this is more a fault of the GM not correctly challenging your character and/or not correctly controlling game balance during character creation/advancement.

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.

Originally posted by Outsider

Just counting writeups in the supplements to determine how disadvantageous something is doesnt work. It fails to take into account how common each critter is, and how often it is likely to represent a problem within the campaign envisioned.

Ummmmmm I believe I said that.

Originally post by Galadorn

That's only if you are running a straight-forward good vs. evil campaign. Sometimes the "bad" guys, are neutral-aligned grizzlies.

This is where I referred to the relative nature of each campaign.

The old AD&D Monster Manual spent 13 of its 98 pages of monster wrtieups on demons, devils, and dragons, but (at least in most campaigns) they didnt make up 13.25% of creatures people ran into.

Do people listen nowadays? I didn't say pages, I said monsters.

Or, for the visually minded :

An army is attacking your stronghold. It has 10,000 members, all of whom are either Orcs, Men, or Hobgoblins, while your stronghold is manned by only 1000 folk of your own (all men). The Orcs form the bulk of the army, with the Men (well, Man) being the Evil Wizard who is controlling the whole deal, and the Hobgoblins, his bodyguard. The breakdown numberwise is 9900 Orcs, 99 Hobgoblins, and 1 Man. Having a spell that only effects Orcs isnt worth much (if any) disadvantage, since 99% of the targets -it will likely be cast on- will be orcs. Despite the fact that "orc" writeups represent only 1/3 of the "monsters" in the campaign bestiary.

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.

Originally posted by Outsider

This isnt meant to be harsh either, but... read what he wrote. He says that the fact that the spell only effects evil will usually be advantageous in his estimation. One of the overarching concepts in Hero System is : If its not actually disadvantageous, you dont get a limitation for it.

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:

Six grizzly bears charge up the rocky hill towards Aragon the Cleric. Aragon is in a tight spot and casts his holy cosmic superblast spell at the huge grizzlies.

 

A ball of light like the sun engulfs the grizzlies, angels sing a blaring chorus, lightning thunders down from heaven. When the light clears Aragon sees that the fur on the grizziles is not even singed, untouched, prisitine. The grizzlies continue their furious advance.

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.

What you -could- do is take it as a no point limitation* and figure that the bad guys can do the same thing to the good guys, so it all balances out. (this assumes that the bad guys will have a rough parity in spellcasters... if they dont, then "good for the goose, good for the gander" doesnt ameliorate things any).

That's only if you are running a straight-forward good vs. evil campaign. Sometimes the "bad" guys, are neutral-aligned grizzlies.