Shaddakim

Nunchaku: 0 OCV 3d6N STRMin 7

3 Section staff: 0 OCV 4d6N STRMin 9 +2 OCV with Bind, Block, Disarm, Takeaway, +1" Range

Katana: +1 OCV 1.5d6 STRMin 12 Thrown, 1.5 Handed

There you go, right from Ultimate Martial Artist.

Originally posted by slikmar

I actually have switched to a 65 point limit on attributes, and the reason i say that a limit will seperate fighters/mages is that without limits, what will keep a char from spending enough to get 20 str, 20 dex, 15 con, 13 body, 18 int, 20 ego for a total of 84 attributes, thereby giving you someone very suited for both magic and fighting equal to almost anybody who specializes in either (game balance problem in my opinion as each character should be able to be equal and/or unique).

[snip]

Hmmm, I see your point. Even taking into account 20-30 points of starting spells and 10-15 points on a fighting style, they would still have something like 21-36 points to spend on starting skills, a little light for my tastes, but do-able.

My players tend to favor a heavier set of skills (possibly because I give them in game incentive to by limiting their ability to do things they have no skill in). Looking at the current characters (who range between 150 and 170 in points), I see a spectrum of points in characteristics from 49 at the low end (a thief/mage) to 93 at the high end (a dwarven tank).

I think the thing that would keep a character from doing this is the GM, either by saying "nice try, but no" or setting limits like you are.

Re: New Idea for Starting

Originally posted by Sterling

I wanted to run a 75+75 campaign but I love the story of the beginning hero who is struggling but learns fast. Characters with Destiny written across their forhead . So I am starting the characters with 25+75. So they have all their disads and have plenty of points for background, racial abilities, nifty skills while still giving them plenty of room to grow. Then I plan on increasing the xp given per adventure by a about a small amount to increase their rate of growth. I am finding the characters the players build very usable without being to big as starting fantasy heroes.

 

Sterling

That sounds cool. If/when I start a new campaign, I'll give that some thought. My one concern is, doesn't this make them somewhat "twitchy" when they start? [One of our long standing limits on Disads is a prohibition on building characters that cannot do anything but stand there and twitch from all their physical and psych lims.]

What kinds of Disads do you find your players take in this situation?

I'm doing some re-vamp work on my campaign and have a question for everyone:

Does the money in your game have specific names for the coins (penny [copper], denarii [silver], noble [gold], bar [platinum]) or do you use the generic version (cp, sp, gp, pp)?

I am interested in everyones experience on this. Thank you for your time in advance.

I have been fairly happy both playing in and running FH campaigns at the 75+50 level. My only complaint has always been "not enough points for skills" (I favor skill heavy characters). That point aside, I would recommend starting at 75+50.

I am curious as to why a 75 point limit on attributes would create a differentiation between fighters and mages. Due to spell costs (and my requirement that all spells have RSR as a limitation) this is how it has always fallen out (fighters with str/con, mages int/ego). What has been your experience?

Well OK then. Just so everybody understands everything. Yessss.

...but the Spleen joke was cool!

My games tend to run a little magic heavy in a technology sort of way - there is a good deal of magic doing things technology does in the real world (lightstones, fresh water supply, etc.) but not weaponry. The players characters, however, start out with a silver piece per professional skill, 3 kg of armor spread out however they want, and some basic gear. Sort of like getting out of college...

At that point, I show them the world, provide them some options, and ask them what they do next. I favor the "provide the playground and see which playgound equipment they want to play with" school of GMing. It means a little more work for me as I have to have several things ready initially, but after that I have some idea of where they want to go and provide adventures that go there. Seems to work so far (5+ years playing once a month in the same campaign).

I favor starting points at 50+50 or 75+50. I am much more interested in seeing beginning heroes grow and make their name in the world than starting high and going higher.

Originally posted by Markdoc

As for the telekinetic duels, I agree. What's with that? Enough, already. The Saruman/Gandalf punch-up was one of the low points of the films so far. Although at least Saruman didn't hiss "Hah! Your kung fu is too weak!"

 

cheers, Mark

Hahahahahahaha!

Actually, I would pay good money to see that. Hah!

But to answer Old Man's point, I think it is because TK fight scenes are easier and (more importantly) cheaper to film, yet still say "this is a fight between Wizards, not sumo wrestlers".

In my more cynical moments, I also think it is because they don't have the ability to visualize anything better.

Another consideration is the difference between a character who started at 350 points and one who has earned XP to bring them up to 350 points (say, after starting at 200 points).

It has been my experience that, no matter how good a rules runner you are, a character that has been played up to 350 points will be a much more effective character.

Originally posted by RevHooligan

Now, would a strait rka melt stone or do you think we'd need to build a major transform?

 

I think I would make it a BODY Drain with the SFX being that the stone melts.

Having never seen the movie, were they hopping vampires (ala Feng Shui RPG/CCG)?

I plan on buying it for several reasons:

1) Every edition so far had had something I could use in it. Even the spell colleges had a useful limitation (Must have x points in y college) - poorly executed, but useful none-the-less.

2) I am currently running a long-standing FH game and can use all the source material I can get. Not having to translate it from a different game system is a major bonus.

3) I enjoy seeing how different people do the same thing I do in my fantasy game, but differently. Several of the examples in FREd were very cool ways of doing things and I expect to see the same in the new edition of FH. Heck, even the explanations of what not to do lead to interesting ideas.

4) To poke a stick in the eye of those insulting bastards at Guardians of Order. Have you seen the ads they have been running in Game Trader magazine? I will never buy another product of theirs, ever, and I had been planning to until I saw those ads.

Right now, vis-a-vis languages, I am using different cultural names to indicate locations those people are from. (Russian names for one group, French names for the core part of the Empire, Hebrew names for the gnomes, etc)

In order to justify this "clumping" of names, I realized each region would need a seperate language/culture. These are currently overlayed by "Common", the trade language of the Empire (it comprises most of the continent, for the moment ).

I will put together a basic language tree to show relationships and will most likely borrow heavily from the real world tree in FREd. What I do not want to do is use the same names as the real world.

Markdoc reminded me of a website that has multiple name/word generators using different scripts. I think I will go back there and see what they have. I'll post the link as soon as I can find it again. Thank you to everyone for their time and input on my language question. Your comments have sparked many ideas. I now return this thread back to its original topic - Racial Packages.

I'm adding the same to mine during a re-tooling my campaign is going through. I'm also revamping languages by adding regional human languages over and above Common, which is now a trade language, not the default language.

On a tangental topic to racial packages, does anyone have any suggestions on naming the non-human languages something else besides Elven, Dwarven, etc. ?

Put another way, is naming the non-human languages adding realism and value to a campaign or going into needless detail?

Originally posted by D-Man

Yes, its on this page.

 

http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/cfg/allharnitems.cfg

Thank you for the info.

Thanks Mudpyr, I like your thinking on this. I agree, the new encumberance levels are way too forgiving. I will probably use the Casual STR-on-the-current-chart option and see how that works out.

Thank you for your time.

Pardon me for coming in late, but has anyone suggested "The 13th Warrior"? It would be low fantasy, but a good one none-the-less.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Need to do some Tin golems and Jello cubes also.....

Same post three times? Sounds like you've been doing some jello shots at least...

Originally posted by D-Man

Analyze: Value

 

Complimentary skill rolls can be relevent background skills, such as KS: Objects D'Art, etc.

I essentially agree with David (particularly on the complimentary skills). However, I think Analyze: Value would be much too broad without some sort of limiter. A thief would not necessarily know how much a house or some other building was worth, but should know the value of things inside the house. I would limit the use of Analyze: Value to only subjects the character covered with either a KS or PS.

The description of Analyze in FREd requires this kind of limit when dealing with its original use. Therefore, using it on inanimate objects should also require a limit or set of boundaries.

What does everyone else think?

Originally posted by D-Man

The size of every fief, the population of every hamlet, and the name of every aristocrat...

 

Example: HarnManor, which is the rules set for generating manors, has weather charts, planting charts, crop yield rules, and the estimated income for a particular fief, the list goes on...

(snip)

Hey, is HarnManor still in print? I collect source material from a variety of game systems and could use a good source on handling manors. My PC's have just reached the point where they can afford to own a place to live and I would like to have something to go by.

Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by Eodin

Hey Shaddakim, that Lan wouldn't happen to be Lan Kelly, would it? If so, tell him Eodin from the Lubbock days says hi!

Eodin,

Yes, actually, it is. I somewhat lost contact with him once he moved to San Antonio, but have kept my copy of his List. When did you game with him? I gamed with him mid to late '80s. (Please send your reply via PM so we can finish our conversation off this list.)

If anyone else is in contact with Lan, please tell him "Hi!" from both of us. Better yet, get him onto this forum.

Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by mudpyr8

Most sources I have read indicate that a suit of fitted plate weighed around 60-70 lbs.

 

While mobile, nobody traveled in plate unless they were on horseback, and even then only if they had to.

(snip)

I prefere a small dose of realism in my FH games, which basically precludes heavy armor from the adventuring party, unless they are specifically gearing up for a known combat. Typically a knight would wear medium chest armor, and light elsewhere, while travelling, and upon arrival to the "dungeon" don his plate and leave all of his gear on his horse, guarded by his henchman and squire.

 

That's my .02.

I like the way you think. Quite an obvious thing that that I never grokked to. I will be adding that to my campaign. I thank you and my players may curse you.

What DEF/weight do you consider heavy armor to start at? What range is medium?

Thank you for your time.

I have a list containing a wide variety of equipment items and their mass. It was developed by one of the guys in my college FH group. He spent time either tracking down items and actually weighing them or researching their weight in other ways. The resulting list (known as Lan's List, as he was the one who wrote it) became our bible on equipment.

Send me your e-mail address as a private message and I'll e-mail you a copy. I typed it into MS Word and made a PDF of it so it isn't very large, file size-wise. The only thing I ask is that you not change the name of the file, it's Lan's material and he deserves the credit for the work.

Originally posted by Old Man

My current character is a sorcerer whose fear of death has in some ways ruined his life. His obsession with living forever drew him into the practice of the only branch of magic that really deals with the subject--necromancy. Once a respected member of the near-nobility, he has pissed away his fortune and his reputation, and has now been driven to a life of "adventure" both by his obsession and by the revulsion of those who were once his friends. Ironically, his quest for eternal life is now very likely to result in an untimely demise.

Based on a PC alchemist in our group, we once determined that alchemists were necromancers in training based on the following evidence:

1) after clearing a towns graveyard of ghouls, he secured the right to live in their tunnels.

2) he bred rats and snakes together to act as guardians.

3) he defeated a dragon's armor with altered facial cream.

4) he created a set of magical robes that allowed him to remain concious and alert 24 hours a day (without eliminating the issues involved with long term sleep deprivation).

5) his name: Nekus

Very creepy character, but the player was a lot of fun to roleplay with. My character was much more mentally stable - he was a wizard who believed lightning would save the world...

Re: Fantasy Hero Characters

Originally posted by Super Squirrel

I have some fantasy hero characters from some playtesting I did for FH. The characters actually turned out quite good considering I prefer 25+25 games.

 

 

So,, what kind of Fantasy Hero characters have you seen?

While I am currently running a 75+50 game right now, I have greatly enjoyed some 25+25 games I've been involved in as pick-up games.

The last one I ran was a FH game for three players when we had a weekend to kill. The players discussed what they wanted to play and built their characters to work together. Thus was born Doctor Zimbabwe's Travelling Side Show and Freak. The characters were:

Doctor Zimbabwe - owner of the wagon and the show, he used a broken magic item he found to create images to wow the yokels.

"Slick" - a rather disreputable individual who was good with knives. He juggled knives and provided security.

Hobart - not too bright, but an excellent singer with a head he could break glass over. He was the freak. Sort of a young Elvis to Doctor Zimbabwe's Colonel.

Ah, the memories...