Tywyll

By the way, Tywyll, it occurs to me that we (myself included, if not especially) have been providing no shortage of unsolicited advice on your Casters rules, and occasionally mentioned the non-caster question you actually asked. You've been very gracious in filling us in on the desired game style and the background to the caster rules.  Thanks for that!
 
STUN instead of END could certainly be workable.  When out of END, a character in RAW can exert himself at a cost of 1d6 STUN/2 END already.
 
However, given it will likely be Martial-types using this, I wonder how well that will play out.  When we are at our most desperate, and I really need to use that extra boost, can I afford the STUN loss?  Clearly it will not be used in a last-ditch effort by a barely conscious (or just-recovered-to-positive-stun) character.  But I may open every combat with it, since I will get a PS 12 recovery and get the few STUN expended back.
 
You mentioned tracking END when characters do something extreme, just not for routine (well, routine for adventurers) activity.  One possibility would be ruling that the default rule of "nothing costs END" is really "if you have enough END and REC that going full-out in combat is no big deal, then you do not have to track END".  What END would they spend in a typical phase?  Maybe 1 for movement, a couple for STR, so 3 END per phase.  A 4 SPD character would use 12 END and recover what, 6 or 8?  So he'd start with 20 END, act on Ph 12, recover his END, take 4 actions, recover 6 END and start next turn with 14 END.  He can go two turns and a bit before worrying about END.  We give him a break when he recovers from being KO'd, but that's about it.
 
Perhaps, just like casting means buying in to some extra tracking and resource management, so does an ability that "costs END".  It may be a means of introducing the overall END concept to the group.
 
Or those "costs END superskills" also feed off an END Reserve (perhaps with a different name) to place a resource management constraint on those characters' unusual abilities (the Monk has a "Chi Reserve", the Swashbuckler has "Panache", etc.).
 
Different abilities could also have different "side effects".  The Barbarian can fly into a rage (maybe he gets +5 STR for a turn or so), but when it ends, he takes a STR Drain from fatigue.
 
You mentioned it won't come up much, so perhaps that suggests an option to create a very customized consequence for the specific over-exertion in question.

I take this from:
 


 
Neither of the items I have emphasized are CP costs.  The discussion of characteristic rolls and END costs both refer to "standard rounding rules", as does Stretching (p 284), damage from heat (6e v2 p 150).  Oddly, it's not mentioned in halving DCV, but with no other guidance, it seems reasonable that "standard rounding" would apply.

In early editions, you bought KAs in 1d6 increments, until someone came up with the +1's and half dice.  Here, I'd just divide by three and probably round up for the middle steps, as applicable.
 
As you note, I consider loss of both OCV and DCV pretty significant, so I picked -1 1/2.  It aligned perfectly with a Martial Arts DC, which I was not expecting, but which suggests an underlying consistency.

They are paying points for an END reserve that no one else needs because no one else pays END.  That allows them to pay points for abilities that other characters don't have.  If they followed the same "no one else pays END" rule, then they would not need to buy an END reserve. 
 
If everyone started with a Fatigue pool, which no one else bought up, they would not be paying something for nothing, and that "one magic item" from TFT would not need a special rule.  Shifting to normal END could work, but would not capture the same feel without a lot of customizing anyway.  The END reserve seems like the right tool.
 
 
Sounds like their REC is effectively faster in Hero.  With 6 REC and 30 END, they get the whole pool back in just under half an hour.  But if it's getting the right result, why mess with it?  I (maybe some others - can't speak for them) often wonder why people adopt Hero and then try to replicate a different system with as much precision as possible.  If the other system was great, why switch?  But it sounds like you have other reasons for preferring Hero, just want to simulate the feel of the magic system.
 
 
Given the whole pool recovers in half an hour, a one hour ritual does not seem so bad, but I guess the normal one recovers while you are on the move, so an hour sit-down would feel quite different.
 
 
Probably have to call it "limited power" in HD as I expect it can't be told END does not normally apply.
 
For a power that costs 0 END by default, there is no advantage to costing no END when the game does not use END, so it's even more limited/disadvantaged.  Not sure how often it would be relevant, though.  It may not be worth the extra customization/hassle.

When mixing charges in a multipower, the charges on the multipower determines the number of uses of the multipower while the charges on the slot determine the operation of the slot.  That sounds confusing so lets look at a simple example (if silly example).
 
40 Multipower (60) 8 charges(-1/2)
6f     12d6 EB, 16 charges (-0)
6f     TK 40 Str, 8 charges for 1 Turn (-0)
 
As you can see the 8 charge limitation only affects the multipower pool.  The limitation is not bought on any of the slots.  This means the pool can be used only 8 times.  Even if the EB  can be use 16 times, the pool itself can only be activated 8 times. 
 
So questions that might be asked:
Would anyone buy it this way?  Probably not.  Few people would buy a slot with more charges than the multipower itself.
Is it legal?  Yes. 
So why show it this way?  Only to explain how the multiple charges works.
Doesn't the TK die when the slot is changed?  No, this was asked a while back of Steve Long.  In effect, the power will continue to run until the charge expends.  The character will not be able to change what its doing, it simply continues doing what its doing.  So if the TK was grabbing someone when the slots switch, it will continue to grab that person until the turn ends.  It will not squeeze the character after the slot has been switched unless the character expends another charge.  The only thing the character might be able to do is switch off the power which will not restart unless they use another charge.
So how would this work in my magic scenario? It could make a character similar to how the rpg that shall not be mentioned ( )  runs sorcerers where there is a maximum number of uses per "spell level".  
Do you really think this is a better idea than my idea? No.  I  am like Duke Bushido.  I prefer an End Battery and/or Personal End for spells.  But it's a functional way to do things you or someone reading this post might want to try.  "More than one way to skin a cat" phrase so to speak. 
 

Based on the costs of Figured Characteristics, and the amounts provided, both STR and CON had an effective negative cost pre-6e.  That was a combination of Figured's being overpriced (addressed in 6e) more than STR and CON providing too much.  +20 CON provided +4 ED (4 points in 6e), +4 REC (4 points in 6e), +10 STUN (5 points in 6e) and +40 END (8 points in 6e), so 21 points worth of 6e Figured.  Price CON at 2 points and make "no figured" a -1 limitation and we're pretty close.
 
The value of STR goes way up if you fight with muscle power and/or must worry about encumbrance for essential gear. 
 
6e sets Hand Attack as a -1/4 limitation.  To me, that is too low.  -1/2 would be more appropriate.  That would allow a -1/4 limitation for "combat effects", so you also get Shove, Escape, Grab, etc.
 
Or we could also rebuild HA, along with MA DCs, to follow the Deadly Blow and Weaponmaster model.
 
I think we start by ignoring "limited skill levels only add to OCV".  If we want that, buy limited OCV.
 
Looking at 6e v1 p 447, Weaponmaster is already constructed with 3, 5 or 8 point skill levels, with 8 point levels getting -1/2 for "Only with Weapons", making their cost only slightly more than a 5 point level.  The problem is making "only to increase damage" a mere -1/2 limitation.
 
Deadly Blow uses 8 point levels only to increase damage (-1/2 - same issue), only with weapons (-1/2) and a Limited Power of -2, -1 or -1/2 depending on the situations where it works.
 
I would say "Damage only" is at least -1, probably -1 1/2.  Only with Weapons is arguably -1/4, but let's retain -1/2 for now.  I also note that the writeup limits it to killing or normal damage, but the actual build does not.
 
That would be -2 in total limitations, and it will work with a sword or a club.  So that would make the costs of Weapomaster for all weapons 6 x 8 = 48 AP/3 = 16 points.
 
Only with Blades is 6 x 5 = 30 AP/2.5 = 12 points.
 
Only with Daggers is 6 x 3 = 18 AP/2.5 = 7 points.
 
Making it for bare-handed HTH combat should be 5 point levels, so 30 AP, damage only (-1 1/2) = 12 points.  Tack on Costs END (-1/2) and it becomes 10 points, so Hand Attack is 3 1/3 points - or the same as a -1/2 limitation on STR (but STR would be 1 END per 2 DCs and we're only getting 1 DC per END).
 
Martial Arts should be 5 point levels, so 30 AP, damage only (-1 1/2) = 12 points.  Divide that by 3 and we get a 4 point Martial Arts DC, so this ties in quite nicely after all.
 
The fact that this ties in nicely with MA DCs and fairly well with Hand Attack suggests this should be the model, at least in my view.

I've seen the argument from a player.  It just depends on what you as a GM are comfortable with.  I was okay with it as long as it didn't exceed the maximum DC of my game.
 
I would like to note a couple of things on the whole 5 pts of Strength vs 4 MA DC.
1) If Strength is drained/suppressed to 0, you can't use DC of martial arts (you only do 1d6 or +1 DC to a weapon)6e1p42.  Martial arts are dependant on Strength.
2) As noted, MA does not give you lift capability as well as other effects that are defined in Strength but not martial arts.  This can be a problem in high gravity zone games.
3) If a martial weapon has a strength minimum on it, martial art DC do not compensate for a lack of strength which may cause penalties.
4) Technically, a GM does not have to let you use martial escape to get out of an entangle, though I see in real life most GMs allow it.  Martial escapes are usually only to counter a grab maneuver (but again the rules says the GM can allow it and most GMs I know allow it).
 

I'm not putting a lot of thought into it: I round in favor of the defender, period.
 
"Each character" _cannot_ get the benefit.  (_This_ is overthinking it, by the way      )  :
 
One character is defending with a DCV that's been halved down to, let's say 3.5.  If I give this character the benefit, then he is defending with a DCV of 4.
 
One character is attacking against a DCV go 3.5.  If I give him the benefit, then he is attacking a DCV of 3.  They can't both get the rounding.
 
A similar problem happens with "round in favor of the PC:"  whether it's mind control or a sudden revelation that means one of the PCs must be stopped before they do X, one player is attempting to attack another player, and they can't both get the rounding.
 
Now a funny thing happens when an OCV of x.5 attacks a DCV of X.5 _and_ you use the rounding: 
 
Rounding for neither and rounding in the favor of the character suffering the "half point of CV" yields identical results.
Rounding in the favor of the defender effectively raises his DCV by 2 (round his up and his attacker's down).
Rounding to the "most heroic," assuming it's the attacker, and the defender effectively gets his DCV reduced by 2.
 
All of which are fine, really, so long as you are always consistent.  That's why I tend to round in favor of the defender, period: so long as it applies to everyone equally (we've all been the defense at some point), it's "fair enough," I think.
 
 
(There.  _Now_ it's been overthunk.    )
 
 

Have to disagree. One player has to track one thing occasionally versus every player tracking something every phase they act in. That is vastly different in effort and brain space. HERO is already a hard sell to my players and I think demanding everyone tracking END would be a deal breaker, so no, I'm not going to do it. Also in FH, END tracking rarely ever limits characters...few combats last long enough for END to make a difference, so it's a vestigle remainder from super heroes that is unneccesary most of the time. 

You're really focused on damage dealing. And if the mage in my group was a blasty caster, then you might have a point. Luckily, she isn't. She's a healer/buffer, meaning she can do stuff conceptually that no one else can do through ordinary concepts. I'm happy to stretch the concept of super skills and allow heroic endeavors for non-casters (hence burning Stun since they don't have another mechanic to deal with it), but no super skill is going to fly or turn desolid and walk through a wall.
 
I am playing HERO, and HERO has base assumptions that despite its claim, do not work for all genre's and settings. Unlimited spell casting is one of them in my opinion.
 
Charges is a terrible cludge to handle powers that are varied in use. Powers with duration need continuing charges, instant powers need regular charges, and there is no easy systemic way to apply those to a casting pool that I have seen. So no, that is an unworkable solution.
 
It's far eaiser to buy an END Reserve and limit its recovery to create the style of play I want. I mean, its almost like the power was built with these sorts of concepts in mind! 

Nope, considering it reduces the mechanical burden across the board for all players, I do not see it that way at all. No one has to track END. Mages have 'mana' (i.e. END Reserves) that they have to invest in if they want to use magic. They are choosing the complication to play the concept. 
 
To put it another way, no warrior concept HAS to buy MA, but to be really good in combat it behooves them to do so. No one has to be a caster, but if they want to be, they need to buy the thing that powers their magic (kinda like the minimum 10 point spend on MA, plus KS, etc). 
 
 

I have spent the day waiting to get home so I could respond to this.  I like what you're doing.  As I mentioned above, I've done it myself for certain games or short campaigns.   And of course, I have to really support the idea that tends to get overlooked when people start picking and choosing the rules:  The rules call themselves a toolkit.  Some of us die hards have even referred to the latest incarnation as being more akin to set of  rules for designing other games than being an actual game.    When you start doing things like this-- ripping out the bits you don't like, or altering them, etc-- I can't help but feel you are actually getting the best possible use out of something that bills itself as generic and flexible:  you are making it exactly what you want.  I will never find fault with that.
 
 
 
Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.
 
 
 
You're singing to the choir, Sir.
 
To be fair, I could probably come up with an argument to support the other side, but they tend to feel either contrived or based entirely on some metagaming math; neither of which are particularly high-level important things to me: to paraphrase a dead guy:  "The _feel's_ the thing!"
 
 
Couple of things:  first, if you mentioned it, I totally missed that you were going with RSR as a default to your magic system.
 
Second, if you mentioned it, I totally missed that you were using MP's as part of your magic system.
 
Okay, a quick recheck suggests that you might not have mentioned either of those things.     However, with both of those in play, then I have no objection on the "tax" front:  you are getting utility for your buy-in:  If RSR is mandatory in your system, you are both buying access to magic _and_ reducing the price of it even further via the RSR limitation.  Upping Magic skill would make accessing magic easier and more likely, so again: utility.  No complaints.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nothing.  Just like your spell casters don't get anything for free.  Merlin's buy-in is the Magic Spell, giving him access to magic.  Increasing the skill makes him arguably "better" at magic as he would become more likely to succeed when he wished to use magic.
 
The strong characters are stronger.  They had to pay for that, though: that was their buy-in.
 
The fast characters get more movement or actions or both.  Like Merlin, they had to buy that.
 
Smart characters, martial artists, etc-- they don't get anything "for free," and that was not what I meant to say; I apologize for my apparent lack of clarity.  I was suggesting (before I knew RSR was part and parcel of your magic system) because spending points to buy "the traits" of other character concepts, these characters had instant utility for those points:  stronger characters can hit harder, carry more, etc, etc, etc.  Faster characters can exploit their increased actions or movement rates to advantage over characters who did not "buy in" to that particular concept.  As you pointed out, RSR is necessary for magic in your game: characters buying it have access to magic, _and_ that magic is less expensive because of it: theoretically, Merlin can recoup his points expenditure in savings on magical abilities.  I'm good with this.  
 
 
 
 
 
This is another solid option for controlling magic in your games (if that is your goal).  You could even add additional limitations like having to memorize the spells every day and getting a night's rest and-- wait.  Scratch those last two.  They suck, and are amongst the reasons I don't play that other, really popular game.       Still, Charges something to think about.  Feel-wise, though, I like the END reserve (personally.  It's a "me" thing   )
 
 

A MADC is a DC, 0END.  Normally that costs 7.  You pay 4.  So "Only with MA" is a pretty big Limitation! 
But a Weapon Element is 1.  So you buy whatever-fu, buy Weapon Element: My Attack, and buy MADCs to get cheaper damage that costs less END.  It's both cheaper and better than buying normal damage normally. 
Because as it turns out, "Only with MA" isn't limiting at all.  And that's not even getting into how MADCs apply to anything, so you can take them outside a MP and cut the slot prices while retaining flexibility. 

Thanks Duke!
 
I don't want the players to have to perform a vestigle and mostly useless bean counting exercise (since END rarely gets exhausted in the 1 turn combats that FH tends to run). It makes sense with supers with 6 speed spending 6+ END a phase, it hardly makes sense when a character has a 3 spd and spends 2-4. 
 
That said, it does GREATLY reduce bookeeping, as only one player has to occasionally count beans (they don't count beans every phase) and the other 4 players get to just take their action and move on. 
 
 
Correct. Personal END only exists to pay attention to long term exercise. We've used it once to see if people could swim underwater while encumbered a long distance and otherwise it just sat on the character sheet. Characters started in 5th ed with their free END and didn't spend any points on it. 
 
 
I don't know if I wasn't clear enough, but this seems to keep coming up. Burning Stun in place of END would ONLY come up for Super-Skills or using magic items that would normally burn a caster's END from their END Reserve. Spells all must come from the END Reserve. A caster cannot spend STUN in place of END Reserve END. The two concepts would not both be active usually on the same character.
 
Joe the fighter might have 'Flurry of Steel' +2 OCV, Costs END -1/2, x2 END Cost -1/2, and to activate it he spends 2 Stun every Phase. The caster would have Fly Spell, 3 END and spend out of their END reserve which recovers more slowly then either Stun or normal END. When the caster's END reserve is empty, he stops flying. 
 
 
Exactly my feeling. Every concept has 'buy in'. And as I said, some example magic systems recommend Talents you have to purchase to use magic that don't actually do anything. This actually does something (gives you your juice) and fits alongside the idea of needing to spend points on the thing you want.
 
You can't play a Brick in supers without spending points on Strength or Growth...why is this so different? 🤔
 
 
I see where you are coming from, but I don't entirely agree. Requires a Skill Roll is a limitation that reduces your overall cost on your spells. Maybe not a lot when you add all your other limitations, but it does add a discount to your price. So you are getting a discount in exchange for needing the skill roll. Since my magic system uses multiple MP's to represent suites of spells, getting that discount multiple times seems like a fair trade off.
 
 
 
 
What do the other characters get for free for their concepts though? Everyone can use free equipment in my campaign, and I don't charge character points for magic items they find, so if one concept got a free bump how to I balance that with other concepts?
 
 
No problem. As always, I appreciate your input! 

You're really focused on damage dealing. And if the mage in my group was a blasty caster, then you might have a point. Luckily, she isn't. She's a healer/buffer, meaning she can do stuff conceptually that no one else can do through ordinary concepts. I'm happy to stretch the concept of super skills and allow heroic endeavors for non-casters (hence burning Stun since they don't have another mechanic to deal with it), but no super skill is going to fly or turn desolid and walk through a wall.
 
I am playing HERO, and HERO has base assumptions that despite its claim, do not work for all genre's and settings. Unlimited spell casting is one of them in my opinion.
 
Charges is a terrible cludge to handle powers that are varied in use. Powers with duration need continuing charges, instant powers need regular charges, and there is no easy systemic way to apply those to a casting pool that I have seen. So no, that is an unworkable solution.
 
It's far eaiser to buy an END Reserve and limit its recovery to create the style of play I want. I mean, its almost like the power was built with these sorts of concepts in mind! 

From 6E1 p 447:
 
HTH

Thanks Duke!
 
I don't want the players to have to perform a vestigle and mostly useless bean counting exercise (since END rarely gets exhausted in the 1 turn combats that FH tends to run). It makes sense with supers with 6 speed spending 6+ END a phase, it hardly makes sense when a character has a 3 spd and spends 2-4. 
 
That said, it does GREATLY reduce bookeeping, as only one player has to occasionally count beans (they don't count beans every phase) and the other 4 players get to just take their action and move on. 
 
 
Correct. Personal END only exists to pay attention to long term exercise. We've used it once to see if people could swim underwater while encumbered a long distance and otherwise it just sat on the character sheet. Characters started in 5th ed with their free END and didn't spend any points on it. 
 
 
I don't know if I wasn't clear enough, but this seems to keep coming up. Burning Stun in place of END would ONLY come up for Super-Skills or using magic items that would normally burn a caster's END from their END Reserve. Spells all must come from the END Reserve. A caster cannot spend STUN in place of END Reserve END. The two concepts would not both be active usually on the same character.
 
Joe the fighter might have 'Flurry of Steel' +2 OCV, Costs END -1/2, x2 END Cost -1/2, and to activate it he spends 2 Stun every Phase. The caster would have Fly Spell, 3 END and spend out of their END reserve which recovers more slowly then either Stun or normal END. When the caster's END reserve is empty, he stops flying. 
 
 
Exactly my feeling. Every concept has 'buy in'. And as I said, some example magic systems recommend Talents you have to purchase to use magic that don't actually do anything. This actually does something (gives you your juice) and fits alongside the idea of needing to spend points on the thing you want.
 
You can't play a Brick in supers without spending points on Strength or Growth...why is this so different? 🤔
 
 
I see where you are coming from, but I don't entirely agree. Requires a Skill Roll is a limitation that reduces your overall cost on your spells. Maybe not a lot when you add all your other limitations, but it does add a discount to your price. So you are getting a discount in exchange for needing the skill roll. Since my magic system uses multiple MP's to represent suites of spells, getting that discount multiple times seems like a fair trade off.
 
 
 
 
What do the other characters get for free for their concepts though? Everyone can use free equipment in my campaign, and I don't charge character points for magic items they find, so if one concept got a free bump how to I balance that with other concepts?
 
 
No problem. As always, I appreciate your input! 

I find if I don't use a Pathfinder or D&D equipment cost sheet for these things the immersion damage to the players is not worth it.
 
 

That supposes that skills are currently equal.  Breakfall can be counted on to be important multiple times a superfight if Knockback is in use.  Is that as valuable as Lockpicking?  Combat Driving?  Contortionist?  I'd say no, I'd be amazed if those skills came up once per session outside specific genres.  HERO makes some blind assumptions about frequency of use that are likely to not hold true for any given campaign but probably be vaguely accurate if averaged across all genres. 
And for that matter, genre says a lot about what skills are even useful.  Take Climbing, is Climbing worth giving the time of day when you could buy Cling-Grips (FRED page 143) for 4 points?  I'd say most certainly not, but if it came packaged with Acrobatics and Contortionist it'd be more tempting.   Is the ability to drive mundane vehicles well worth charging for when the party is The Flash, Superman, Iron Man, and Thor?  Of course not, getting in a car would just slow those heroes down! 
 
If Knockback isn't in use, merging it with Acrobatics lets people have Breakfall for the once-a-campaign time it's needed but not be overcharged.  If locked dungeon doors are commonplace, Lockpicking shouldn't be merged with anything since it's already great.  So on and so forth. 
I'd suggest looking at how often a given skill gets used in your campaign (or prior games with the same genre even if they're different systems), and trying to merge similar underused skills. 

Having run a 6E game way back when it came out, I would say your assessment is mostly fair. The difference is pretty small though. You could award R.A.W. experience awards and the players would not feel cheated or hampered.

And while we are at it, let's rerelease the earlier versions of Hero Software (assuming licenses are still owned) so that people who buy these pdf products or have the old physical ones can get tech support if they want it.
 
I want the BBB hero maker software. Why isn't that available?

The last campaign I ran (the only 6th Edition campaign I've ever run) was roll high for everything.
 
It worked fine. Better than roll under in my opinion (because I don't like roll under systems in general).
 
When I switched the TFT characters over to HERO this time around I hemmed and hawwed about rolling high because that is my preference, but in the end stuck with roll under because that is how TFT also worked.

Resource Points on the Perks tab.

I did it in a game I ran for D20 lovers.  I customised a character sheet and told them that the test for success was to beat 10 on a modified roll.  So roll + levels and bonuses - difficulty and penalties. 
 
In combat, OCV is a bonus as are skill levels and sundry situational modifiers; DCV is the difficulty with range etc providing penalties. 
 
With skills, the difficulty was 10.  I treated every improvement to base skill as a plus on the sheet, so Stealth 11 or less was listed as Stealth on the character sheet; Stealth 13 or less was listed as Stealth +2.
 
Worked a treat, everything was about beating 10, rolling high was always good.
 
However, to show the fickleness of gamers, not one of them complained about Runequest when looking to roll under a percentage to hit and roll high for damage....
 
Doc

The last campaign I ran (the only 6th Edition campaign I've ever run) was roll high for everything.
 
It worked fine. Better than roll under in my opinion (because I don't like roll under systems in general).
 
When I switched the TFT characters over to HERO this time around I hemmed and hawwed about rolling high because that is my preference, but in the end stuck with roll under because that is how TFT also worked.