Lezentauw

I have a thought that I have been playing with for a bit, which I plan to test out this weekend. If you hit by +4, any die rolled that results in a 1 becomes a 2. If you hit by +8, any die rolled that results in a 1 or 2 becomes a 3. I thought about something like Doc's idea, but to me that would over reward the high OCV character. If the character wants to do more damage, they will have to target a hit location or allocate some CSL's for extra DC. My current thought is a way to prevent a really good hit from just doing minimal damage. But, as Outsider already stated, even my idea may swing the balance to the high OCV character concept...

In V&V you were suppose to have the players play themselves. I decided back then, in my youth, that I was not going to get into the whole evaluate yourself debate. Besides certain stats are impossible to evaluate. So, I just had the players role for their stats normally, and explained it as an alternate form of the player....

If you do not have spells or creatures that can age the player, then no longevity is more of a flavor than an advantage. In other games, *cough* D&D *cough*, a ghost will age you 10-40 each time it hits. Or, if you use the spell Speed a lot, you will age 1 year each time you benefit from that spell. So, if you have age affecting things like that, then longevity has some value, otherwise you are correct in saying that it is more of a flavor thing and should probably not really be worth spending points on...

I like the premise of the speed chart, as it does allow for the difference in character concepts. Speedsters should act more than bricks, it is their thing... What I don't like is the predictability with it... I considered using the optional version in one of the advanced books. The premise is that you roll a die for every speed value you have, so a speed 3 character would roll 3d6. Then to figure out the segments, you subtract 4 from their total. On average you get the same number of actions, but you could end up with less or more... So if a speed 3 rolled an 11, he would go on 11/7/3. This does make changes to how speed work, especially to whom goes firs, but with the drawback of giving high speed characters a lot of actions up front. Then when the slower characters get to act, everyone is the same. This to me breaks some of the cinematic feel of the speed chart. You no longer have a faster character trading 2 blows for 1, you end with a flurry of attacks up front, and then blow for blow. Not really what I was looking for to break the predictability of combat.... I guess, I could have the players roll for initiative, add up the dice, then divide by 4 to figure out their effective speed. But, that is adding in more math and complexity, that I am not sure I would really want to introduce... So, speed chart as RAW is where I will probably stay... EDIT I just thought of a way to simplify the last idea, rather than counting the dice as normal and then dividing by 4, it would be simpler to just count the speed dice as body dice....

Thanks for the response. I agree about the giving players things to do, especially for starship engagements. In fact that is one of the first things that one of the players stated right of the gate.

I find myself working on a sci fi campaign. This campaign is meant to offer the group something more than just fantasy to play. In this process of working out the technology and the specific type of sci fi, I was wondering at how well Hero handles starship battles...

After looking at Hugh's figures, I relooked at mine. I noticed that I must of used 5e costs in some areas. I went about figuring out what everything would cost, much in line for what you get for DEX in 6e in paying 2 cp now. So here is my latest version, if we end up using figured characteristics again: STR = 3 DEX = 6 BODY = 3 CON = 3 EGO = 4 INT = 2 PRE = 2 Or I could see the argument for slightly reduced costs such as: STR = 2 DEX = 5 BODY = 2 CON = 2 EGO = 3 INT = 1 PRE = 1

I have Fred, and that was the last incarnation that they have played in. So using that is not the issue. I would just prefer to stay with 6e, and sessions have been run using 6e with other groups. My understanding is that they mostly object to the characteristics are no longer related together, to them that makes more sense. I will have to check to see that they are not also complaining about the cost savings of playing a stat heavy character. If that is the case, then that is another issue all together. Thank you on this call, as it is something entirely different than just figured characteristics. When I came up with the new costs, they were represented by the costs of the figured characteristics as well.

I am working on a FH campaign for a group of players that consists of long-time Hero players. As the title has mentioned they strongly disagree with how 6e handles characteristics. I am hoping that I can just leave 6e "as written" for the characteristics, as the change I came up with will affect aids/drains. Besides I like how simple the aids/drains works now. If it is still an issue, I have come up with new costs for figured characteristics as a compromise. Let me know what you think of these new costs for the base characteristics; STR = 4 DEX = 6 CON = 4 BODY = 3 INT = 2 EGO = 4 PRE = 2

Re: Looking For Input On Potential New Fantasy Product Another aspect I like about Hero are complications. For D&D they are nothing more than for role playing. For Hero you actually get something for these weaknesses that help define your character

Re: Looking For Input On Potential New Fantasy Product lol, I meant Vancian... typing on a phone and all

Re: Looking For Input On Potential New Fantasy Product 1) Flexible character creation. If you want to play a knight, assassin, or arcane archer you have to play other classes first in D&D, aka prestige classes. In Hero you play what you want from the start if you have enough points. There is no need to track out 20 levels of progression when you create your character... In Hero they feel more like professions than classes, where the profession defines what you do and the class defines what you are... 2) Less abstract combat system. Armor lets you get hit and take no damage. In D&D you are just harder to hit and you always take damage once you are hit. If you use encumbrance you actually are easier to hit with armor. Built in rules for knocking someone out and critical damage. More combat options that any can do, without having to buy a talent for each one. The abstract hit points are done away with, and replaced with imo more realistic body and stun. At level 20 you are not going to worry about a thug with a crossbow, because you have 100+ hit points... 3) Just about every magic system is anything but the Vatican system. you can actually have a magic system that is close to the fantasy books you read. These are the reasons I have not played D&D since 3.0...

Re: Counters to problems? (Such as AoE spam and magic overuse)

Re: Tesunden Isles

Re: Opposite Schools of Magic Ok, I found the notes concerning opposite elements in UEP. It offers some interesting ideas, if I chose to incorporate them. I was more wondering if other people bothered to incorporate this concept, or they just considered it part of the special affect.

When creating spells for schools, do you take into consideration the differences of opposite schools of magic. For example, Fire is always considered opposite of Water in the elemental branch. Would you put a limitation on a spell called Ice Armor, that it would lose some of its effectiveness against fire based spells? Or would you go the other way, and have Ice Armor purchase more defense only vs fire based attacks? Just curious...

Re: World without horses Well obviously you will be removing calvalry from the game, and the need for long spears to be developed. Wagons will never be developed either, most likely only a two wheeled cart that can be handeled by hand. The removal of wagons would hinder how effective land trade would be. It would be far faster to always take trade to water ways. The removal of wagons would also put the burden of carrying supplies for a siege on the soldiers. Any siege weapons would have to be made at the location of the siege, which would give a beginining advantage to the defenders. One of the biggest advantages of having beasts of burden during a war, is if you run out of food. Your pack animals just became, whats for dinner. While it may seem gruesome, it can keep an army alive.

Re: HEROEs of Athas If I remember correctly, the third edition of Fantasy Hero did something like that. They had a limitation that required x amount of points being spent in said school before you could purchase the spell. You could do something similiar, say -1/4 limitation, "Must have learned x power before you can learn this power."

Re: "Raise Dead" / "Resurrection": for those of you that DO, how do you handle... I would say that you can have Resurrection available, and yet keep the threat of death very prominent. I would use the movie The Mummy as an example. You can make a Resurrection spell a ritual, with multiple casters coupled with some rare material components. I kind of like the idea that a corpse being raised is kept alive by magic. The only way to truly bring a person back from the dead, is at the cost of another life. While the person brought back by magic is still alive, that person will become susceptible to various anti-magics. Of course, a Dispel Magic would have to be very powerful to overcome a ritual...

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them? Perhaps for High Fantasy campaigns, you could have people use resource points for magic items...

Re: Real Costs for spells and how you handle them? I think that if you like to play high fantasy campaigns, there is not going to be a balance between the mages and the warriors. The mages are going to be supreme, hence the fact you are playing a high magic style. If you play a sword & sorcery style, then things could easily shift to the warriors advantage. In a s&s style setting, it is common for spells to take an entire segment or an extra segment to cast. The spells are interruptable, if the mage takes damage or if the caster gets knocked down. You can also let the non-casters get a dispel, called distracting blow. Many of these things are items that are common in video games like Dragon Age, WoW, or Guild Wars. You could also make it that each spell maintained, that they add to the difficulty to cast the next spell. LTE also can cause a mage to not be able to constantly cast spells non-stop. Couple increased endurance on spells, and some of the potent spells will be cast with reserve. You really want a mage to feel the END crunch, change how END gets charged for spells. Instead of 1/10 which is the norm, make it 1/5 like the weapon users. Abilities like sprint or charge, which can be +running for double end, can help them out as well. Especially if you do not let mages have fly or teleport. With spells taking longer, a warrior can line of sight the mage. When a mage tries to cast a flame arrow at a warrior, he can keep running behind trees for cover. The flame arrow hits the tree, and the mage wasted some end. The next time the mage decides to through a fireball spell, the warrior is not going to be able to hide from this one, but he can use the dive for cover maneuver. In my campaign, I require fireballs to cost x2 end, as I want combat to be personnal, not a game of constant AoEs being thrown around. The fireball does less damage than the flame arrow, and it costs more end to cast. In a sense the mage has already burned the end for 3 spells. If the warrior can keep finding cover till he closes the gap, the mage will be close to empty once the warrior gets there, and pretty much dead meat. Yes the mage can buff himself up with spells, if that is what he choses to do, while the warrior is LOS him till he closes. But, the mage is still going to be down that much END for the fight. While the mage may have some advantages at the start of the engagement, a defensively played warrior can outlast him. Now if the warrior does not notice the mage, or does not pay attention to him, then yes he will probably get wasted in a hurry. Which is no different than a warrior letting an archer rain arrows down on him. As someone above has already stated, if you let magic have anything they want while limiting what a non-mage can have, then yes the mages are going to rule supreme. If you let the non-mages get some 'non-standard' abilities, even they have been modeled to death in the RPG games, then things start to get a bit closer to even. It is all in what you want, and how you set things up.

Re: Dragons D&D did have Dragons as very powerful wizards, and I am sure that most are use to that being the primary source. But, I am not sure that is the only source for that. Dragons are considered a magical beast, and there has been many cures for things that has called for the use of Dragon parts. If Dragons are that magical, then most then assume that Dragons have a closer affinity to magic, and are thus able to use magic. If it looks like a Dragon, but is not magical, people tend to refer to them as Drake's or Wyrm's...

Re: Companions of an Uncertain Fate I watched parts of American Idol...

Re: Dragons I stripped 'required' alignments a long time ago. That also removed the need for the metalic dragons as well. I found that a dragon's color only implied the environment where the dragon lived. A dragon's morality was another matter. I believe that the movie Dragonheart was responsible for this change for me...

Re: Dragons