Markdoc

Actually it's not that I don't trust my players: I am too old to waste time with people I don't want to play with But giving that level of power to players ensures that it WILL be used, even if the intent is not obviously to be abusive. If Nosedrip the wizard can generate a 6d6 RKA "Sunblast", Arrowroot the Ranger is going to feel a little put out, no matter how good he is with his bow.... cheers, Mark

"Wizards" And it was the other way round: the evil wizard plays WW2 footage at the elves, paralyzing them with horror while the minions of evil attack. I have wondered if "fritz" from that movie inspired Kenney from Southpark. cheers, Mark

I think it's just a typo: STR minimum is a disadvantage. cheers, Mark

I'd cast my vote for method 1, with perhaps a -3/4 limit for "requires multiple skill rolls". Method 2 is not only non hero standard ((Yeah, I know, I'm a boring old fart, but I really hate that. If you are going to make up rules out of whole cloth, why not just go to a storyteller-based system?) but also looks as abusable as all hell (johhny "one shot" packs enough firepower to level castles, and slaughter troops by the battalion, into 65 points. Ugh, ugh and double ugh). If you want a game where all the players are mages (and that fits well enough with ArsM) then method 2 would give you that: but in that case why not just start mages off at a higher points level and use method1? Then the cost of the VPP becomes moot. cheers, Mark

>> That's why I'm trying to wean my players out of D&D. Not that it's a bad system, but you can do so much more with HERO.<< Preaching to the choir, I know but one of the players from my last game (a complete HERO virgin at the time) is playing DnD 3e with his friends now and he contacted me recently for help converting his GM away from the (ahem) Dark Side. As he stated "Now it's just so frustrating being strait-jacketed into one character class!" cheers, Mark

Heh. Not to get bogged down in the various replies - all of which had good points, by the way - but just to clarify my approach. You can certainly do this on an ad-hoc basis if you wish - and as Demonsong pointed out, his approach costs about the same, so its not that I think it's unbalanced. But my approach is: Build Talents like Talents. Talents, by and large under 5th Ed., are built as powers. So if someone wants the ability to use two handed weapons as one handed weapons, fine: to me that's simply a unique use of HKA/HA. If they want to use only a halberd or all kind weapons, the mechanism is the same, only the cost differs. Likewise with things like deadly blow: that's a unique talent and should have been built like one, not the strange non-hero system method used in FH. This approach has two overwhelming advantages 1. It's simple. 2. You get what you pay for. And conversely, you pay for what you get. So if someone want to do extra damage with a halberd: fine. The rules exist to let them do you that. A more normal use for this "extra damage" effect in my game is to build viable "knife-fighter" characters, who can take on armoured foes. It's a common archetype in films and novels, but hard to do with just a standard "free" 1/2 d6 HKA dagger. I use the same mechanism for both, instead of trying to come up with different ways. As you can tell, I'm a lazy GM: I hate to make up things which are already detailed in the rules. cheers, Mark

I've used hit locations (essential, in my opinion). I do not use disabling/impairing, although I have been thinking about it. The bleeding rules as pointed out, are messed up. instead I use a simple house rule: Characters below 0 BOD must make a CON roll at -1 for every -1 BOD when they perform a violent action (anything that uses END, normally). If they fail, their wounds open and they begin to bleed again. Bleeding can of course be stopped by magical healing or bandaging the wound, etc. This puts a premium on having someone with good paramedic (healing) skills. It also forces badly wounded characters to limp along slowly, dump all their heavy gear, shun combat, etc. In other words, to act like they are badly wounded. It had the unanticipated side effect of leading to the occasional "heroic action" where a character shrugs off his wounds to carry out some important action, with blood leaking cinematically from their mouth and nose... cheers, Mark

what AA said

>>>What if Raleigh brought back to England, and thus Europe, not tobacco, but cannabis? How would this affect things in England, aside from being a good source of hemp?<< People would have looked at him and said "So?" Cannabis in its various forms has been around in the Olde Worlde for a long time - enjoyment of its psychoactive properties is thought to have gone back as far as the Scythians and it was enjoyed in a pure form (Hashish) in at least the middle east and northern India before the rise of Islam. Raleigh almost ceratinly used hemp ropes on his ships: hemp growing (because of its importance for rope-making) was a royal monopoly in England. Still, with a bit of fiddling, perhaps he could have come back with LSD. The seeds of some strains of the common morning glory are rich in lysergic acids and similar psychotropic alkaloids, and it was apparently used by Aztec priests. The plant was considered so sacred that it was death for a non-priest to even see them. The thought of a devout medieval monk whacked out on LSD is a bit worrying though.... cheers, Mark

>>>Why make the character buy the whole weapon if everyone else gets it for free?<<<< Ummm... they don't. 1-handed weapons with extra reach that do Halberd damage don't exist (at least in my game). Unless they are magic, in which case the creator paid full points for them too... >>>One must also take into consideration what the character wielding only the halberd spent the other 10 (or howevermany points the ability should cost) points.<<<< Umm... I did. If his opponent spent those extra points on levels of DCV, with a limitation or two, then the two characters would end up the same. Isn't that the point? After all, if it only costs 2-5 points to go one handed with two handed weapons, then HELLO, BABY! Gimme that really big "one handed" sword that does 2d6 base damage.... Sure it's only one or two DC more, but frankly that makes all the difference. I have not failed to notice how in our games the 1 1/2 d6 weapons usually go "boink!" off heavily armoured opponents, while the 2d6 and 2d6+1 weapons cause more STUN (up to 20 more stun on a good shot!) and (importantly!) almost always cause BOD. Stun comes back quickly. BOD does not. The fact that players will squirm like eels in a trap to squeeze out just one more DC means they have noticed this fact too. Of course this is just my recommendation: if you don't like it choose some other approach. But I doubt it is too expensive. In my experience players are often willing to stump 10 points or so for a unique advantage that gives them a little edge. cheers, Mark

>>>I just make everyone pay for weapons and armor. I've never liked that a fighter has chainmail, sword and bow for free, where the mage has to pay for forcefield and fireball.<<<< We tried that. Several times. It failed horribly every time (unless, I suppose, you WANT a game where everyone is a mage...) cheers, Mark

My approach to this is more rules-driven than special-effects driven (Hey, I can't help it - I'm a rules kind of guy) Having said that, I'd ignore the Halberd entirely. Essentially what the character wants is a "special" one handed weapon that lets him do more damage than any of the standard weapons available. My rule of thumb is that "common" items are free, but custom jobs cost points I'd just let him buy the weapon with the appropriate modifiers: an HKA with 1" stretching and OAF (Halberd). He can put STR min on or not, as required (if not, he could do Halberd damage with fewer dice of HKA, but that's OK with me). Yes, it would be relatively expensive, but at the same time, it effectively gives the character the ability to dish out serious damage and still keep his free +3 DCV from being able to tote a 2H weapon and a shield. Think about it - this guy would make mincemeat out of a similar character with the halberd and no shield... cheers, Mark

I think most historians discount Gibbon's "pacifist" theory - christian rulers of the time were no more averse to leaving behind smouldering landscapes littered with corpses than their pagan counterparts. Rome would probably have collapsed anyway, regardless of what was going on in the temples, as pointed out: the collapse was primarily economic, caused by the need to maintain a large military in foreign regions at a time of slowing economic growth. However, if we go with Rome staying pagan, then no Byzantium (the best you get is the Eastern Roman Empire). Without the unifying influence of christianity, probably no Europe as known: so scratch Big Charlie and Bill the Bastard (you can keep the Vikings, though...). Without Christianity to copy, probably no Islam either: so there goes the Ottomans and the Crusades. So..... I'd use the Chinese or pre-christian Europe model: lots of small states coalescing into larger states and occasionally empires, before noisily self-destructing. Unlike China though, Europe does not have such clean boundaries (the Middle East is the primary "mouth of the bag" so you might expect Europe to remain more outward looking than China did. cheers, Mark

Just on the off chance you missed it, try here: http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/Grimoire/the_ultimate_grimoire.htm there are a bunch of spells sorted into various categories: Alchemy Animal Magic Artifice Divination Enchantment Elementalism- spirit, air, flesh, water, wood, earth, metal, or fire. Illusion Metamagic Necromancy Nature Magic Plant Magic Summoning (also called Conjuration or Invocation) Plus: Spells useful in combat Spells useful in combat, but non-lethal in effect Darkness or Shadow magic Spells that involve travel through, or alteration of, dimensional boundaries Spells employing the use of mystical, but tangible, force. Spells used by "good" organisations - those generally opposing demon-worship and necromancy Healing or Curative magic Spells of ice or cold Spells using light (and sometimes heat, though not fire) Spells employing electricity Spells which have a lunar component or are affected by lunar cycles Spells employing sound as their major effect, or affecting the perception of sound Spells affecting time Spells of travel As for the question of number of spells, I don't feel that each school should cover all the bases: it takes away from the falvour if they are all the same (this was major complaint about the spells in the old FH). A few schools could have as few as 5 or 6 spells and still be interesting to players (and others) if the spells were useful (ie: the "inflict nasty damage" spell is always popular) and costly enough to allow the player to invest a chunk of points. cheers, Mark

The system as described for Cuffbert works for me: although I would probably also levy a penalty for continuous calling for help. I like the idea of increasing the contact cost epending on the leevl of help expected: pouring your XP into your religion seems like a good measure of faith. One idea I suggested last time this came up was that the points invested in the contact contribute to the deities own VPP: so a a priest who has invested 50 points in "faith" is going to mean more to deity than a few hundred casual worshippers who just turn up on holy days... cheers, Mark

Depends what you want. In my last game I deliberately de-emphasised money by saying "yeah, you have plenty" or "no, you don't have enough" and pointing out that the players could just request (politely) food and lodging from peasants who would offer what they could without complaint (at least while the players were in earshot). That's because I did not want kill-them-loot-their bodies In other games I counted every groat - because I wanted the players to do the same. cheers, Mark

In my game scrolls come in two types. #1 - and most common - scrolls are rolled pieces of parchment/vellum/human skin on which someone/something has written something. It could be a map of the Lost Treasure, it could be a laundry list, it could be the spell of Twitten's Twinkletoes. If if is the latter a mage could learn Twitten's Twinkletoes by studying it. In other words, it simply holds information. The second approach is scrolls enchanted to HOLD a spell - of course you could do this with a ring, sword or wand as well - in which case, reading the scroll will cast the spell. Traditionally this ís one use only (trigger) but it could be multiple use (Independant). cheers, Mark

I should point out that I have nothing against the use of VPPs in FH: indeed, earlier in the thread I stated that I specifically allow them in my games. I am not too keen on allowing VPPs and then giving extra freebie points for them. VPPs have never been a huge problem in my game: they give a mage flexibility at the cost of raw power. To me, the freebie points give a little too much power. As for the issue of mages being weak, I must admit it has never occurred in my game or any of the games I have played in. However, we did not have systems which specifically limited powers on a "level" basis, so perhaps that balances things out. cheers, Mark

I'd echo Feywulf. I've used this limitation for years, and it has never been a problem: but I have also used MPs for spells, so mages normally would not have spells on all the time. They have to choose what to have available from their slots cheers, Mark

Actually, I'd tend to side with Phil here. Any halfway smart wizard will be able to keep a triggered defensive power or two in reserve: your suggested approach would actually make that easier by letting them have more spells in total, even if the active point ceiling stayed the same. The powers available to them (in the absence of other limitations not suggested so far) should let them laugh at the worst a brawny warrior can throw out and then turn that warrior rapidly into mulch (eg: 30 PD forcefield, 1 charge lasting 5 hours: "immunity to normal weapons"). A GM who carefully controlled what spells the mage had access to could prevent this, of course, but I can't see the need to make mages even more powerful than they already are... cheers, Mark

>>>...and it resulted in fighters using sweep as their default attack, since you could very easily attack at no significant penalty AND block... If it makes sense, how is this a bad thing?<<< Because prior to this change, strike and sweep were two different maneuvers. Strike was, well, for striking people. Sweep allowed you to swing wildly at a bunch of targets, but came with significant disadvantages, the greatest of which was the fact that if you goofed, you were vulnerable. By allowing Block into the equation, Sweep became the attack of choice (sweep one target!) since it allowed you to block any counter attacks. In short it gave you a free action in exchange for DCV: which often against lower point opponents was much less useful than the high OCV block. This, in turn promoted the use of the 2 point level in OCV, since now you could use it for both attack and defence. Yowza! Such a bargain! It led to players bumping up their OCV just as fast as they could, and made the more expensive levels essentially pointless. In other words, breaking the carefully-balanced Hero system combat rules skewed the cost balance based on those rules. It doesn't really matter that two weapon fighting might not be as common in other genres as in feudal japan. Truth is, even in feudal japan it was somewhere between extremely rare to non-existent. But if you allow this maneuver every fighter will want to buy it. This, in itself, is a pretty good indicator of rules-abuse. cheers, Mark

Still on the topic of Deadly Blow.. >>>It may be splitting hairs, but the swords bit is common sense. To me common sense and concept outweigh the rules in every case.<<< In general I would agree. But why, in that case, introduce a rule that neither obeys the standard Hero system rules, nor makes common sense? >>> Aid wouldn't work – snippage - I wouldn't allow AID to HKA for any weapon that's picked up, though.<<< Well as a GM, that’s your choice, but it’s not how the rules define it. Aid allows you to enhance a specific power. Your power, your mate’s power, Tom Bombadil’s power, whatever. So Aid can be used on any HKA you pick up: or the ones your friend is carrying. To use it for the deadly blow effect, I would require the self only limitation, so it could NOT be used on other people’s HKA. So I have no problem with that. The big problem with Aid is that it is not a very cost efficient method to do this – it takes time to get the best effect out of AID. It remains a possibility , however, particularly since the active cost it can be limited down. >>>How would you do CSLs for the dragonslayer skill (add 1d6K damage to any attack done to dragons with any weapon)? The only way I could see is 6 skill levels (30 pts for +6 HTH), maybe limited with only for damage (-1/4 probably, maybe -1/2), and only vs dragons (-1/2 + depending on how rare dragons are) at a maximum thats 17 points, but could be less.<<< You have it pretty well: based on what’s previously published, “levels cannot be changed†is –1/2 and Steve appears to have given only vs Dragons –2. So the ability appears to have real cost of 11 – and_that’s_exactly_the_point! For no good reason that I can see this ability has been dropped down to 4 points by using a power construct never allowed in Hero system before. Like I said as soon I saw it I realized how abusive it was and red-lined it. It gets worse. Imagine a Dwarf warrior with 18 STR and axe skill. Not an outlandish concept, no? The player buys deadly blow talent, "axemaster" defining it exactly as the "swordmaster" skill listed under Deadly Blow. It costs him a whole 7 points. Now you have a dwarf who - without levels, or martial arts, does 3d6+1 HKA with an ordinary battle axe. He could easily get up to 4d6, and with martial arts, levels and magic could go to 6d6, since he has a BASE damage of 3d6 (Eek!) Not to mention he does two-handed sword damage with a hatchet..... I'm sorry: the more I think about this construct, the more it stinks like a week-old corpse. >>>I've found the exact opposite to be true, mainly because there are many ways to separate characters and items. Having a character lose 3-4 points and its not a major play stopper. Take away 20+ points and the players go ballistic (I would too). <<< You are missing the point here. I am not discussing magic items but the ability to augment mundane items that the characters did not pay points for: my apologies since that was not obvious. If players can use spells to take ordinary, cost-nothing-but-money and upgun them, then essentially they get the benefits of the independant limitation, but without putting any points at risk. I am not suggesting for one minute that such characters make independant magic items: that would be stupid. What they can do – using the deadly blow construct exactly as per the rules - is take the “swordmaster power†toss on their standard magical limitation and get a +2d6 HKA which they can add to any mundane sword: for about 7-10 points. Pick up a mundane 2 handed sword, and if they have reasonable STR, you’re looking at a PC with a 5d6 HKA, doing an AVERAGE of 10 BOD to a fully armoured knight with each blow. Ick! And remember this is a spell they can use on any sword: no independant limitation involved, so you can’t take the attack away from them without depriving them of all swords. Perhaps you see now why this is really a BAD rule to introduce. >>>>That line of thought also begs the question of how you do experience and magic items. Do you have the characters pay cp for all items they find? Or are there no items to be found - everything must be created personally? The latter would limit all fighters - "You want to enchant a sword? Get real mr warrior - ask the mage to use his cp for you" (I don't let a character use another's cps for items BTW - you may do it differently). Can you explain how you run that in your game - I'm interested in hearing how you do it. I've juggled several ideas for my latest campaign, but have nothing concrete. <<< Player’s don’t pay Xps for found items in my games, unless some sort of special skill is needed. Sombody else has already paid the XP. In general, I run magic-poor games, so a magic sword is a big deal and I have bnever had the game get out of control. OTOH, if players want to make magic items they pay Xps. I do allow players other than mages to pay Xp, although it has to be handled in an appropriately “magey†way “I must draw 3 minims of your blood to infuse the sword with the essence of a warrior…etc leading to the loss of Xp. Otherwise as you point out, mage’s would rarely, if ever, make items for other people, and then when do all those magic swords come from? Still, as you noted, players are reluctant to tie points up in independent items, and I assume NPCs are too, thus explaining why magic items are rare. >>>Anyway - the only other comment I have is that the idea of a FH default is funny to me, since the default changes for each campaign (everythings an option until the GM says its ok for his game) - although I believe I do understand what you mean.<<< I hope so: what I mean is that most published material is considered “official†by many players. If you DON’T want deadly blow in your game – as I don’t - then you have to explain to your players why not. In general I would much prefer that an "official" genre book stuck to the published rules, with perhaps suggestions on how and why you can choose to deviate from those. My biggest disappointment with FH is that it is full of deviations from Hero system, which don’t seem to have any good reasons behind them and no explanation as to why they were included. As a genre book, it makes it very much less useful. cheers, Mark

Though I can see why the block option is offered, as a GM I don't allow it. We actually tried something like this in the past (a medieval japanese game, where Katana and Wakazashi were common weapons) and it resulted in fighters using sweep as their default attack, since you could very easily attack at no significant penalty AND block. even with my house rule that blocks are affected by how much you hit by, having the ability to block completely over-ruled the DCV penalty that results from sweeping/TWF. What that means is that in most circumstances, where you are fighting multiple foes, this system encourages you to dump all of your levels in OCV and use two weapons: since it both boosts your chance to hit AND your chance to block with the second weapon. And yeah, I know that you can work around these problems: use missile attacks, multiple attackers, or keep combat fluid to make the "full phase" effect more of a limitation, but nevertheless, it remained a pain in the neck. There's also the issue that if you can use the extra weapon to block (since it is "logical") can you hold that action and attack in another phase? Can you use it for missile deflection? It is, after all just blocking an arrow... Basically my experience has been that this ruling is a generally bad idea - as is almost every single suggestion that bends the rules because "it's logical". Players who want an extra block or extra attack, can buy a triggered power to simulate it: that works. You pay for what you get and the rules define pretty tightly what you can and cannot do with it. I have to admit, I also enjoyed the look on my player's faces the first time I sprang a samurai on them who had a variety of sword maneuvers built as powers. cheers, Mark

>>>How do you not have 1d6 HKA + 1d6 HKA = 2d6 HKA in the Hero System?<<< Ummm. Because 1d6 HKA is a power. So is 2d6 HKA. Having two shortswords (2 x 1d6 HKA) does not allow you do do 2d6 HKA (greatsword) damage. Likewise, a character with 1d6 Aid cannot cast it twice and get 2d6 Aid. He's limited to a max of 6 active points. >>Haven't used naked advantages yet, but (off the top of my head), couldn't you use this to simulate a spell that makes weapons sharper (the armor piercing or penetrating advantage maybe). Its hard to do that another way (should the spell have the weapon built into it?)<<< Why not buy extra CSLs to do damage. Why not buy Aid? Why not buy increased HKA? You could, as you suggested, buy transform. There's lots of ways of doing it. Practically the only thing I would not suggest is letting charcaters buy advantages and then add them to free ordinary weapons and equipment. In previous Hero games supplements the rules have been pretty clear. Normal equipment was free, but if you wanted "special stuff" you bought it with points. >>>But I definitely would not allow the mage-booster to work.<<< It is of course, built using exactly the same mechanism, although I was joking when I posted it, just to make a point. >>>In the FH book, they specifically give an option (since the whole book is pretty much optional) to make a magic sword by only paying for the enhancements you add (the example on page 182-3 comes to mind).<<< Yeah, which is odd since it specifically states in the enchanting magic items section that you can't. OK, FH is big book, and it was written quickly so the occasional snafu is to be accepted, I guess. >>>>but I wouldn't have him pay character points for the base sword (unless the fighters paid for theirs as well).<<< I see your logic, but disagree utterly, based on experience. As noted above, heroic level games have always run on "ordinary stuff is free, special stuff you buy". Mike, an old GM of mine, used exactly the approach you suggest and within a short time, warrior mages with their magically-enhanced armour and weapons had exterminated every other character archetype. In FH, because you are at the bottom of the scale, being able to go from 3d6 HKA to 4d6 HKA is essentially the same as halving the effect of heavy armour and eliminating light armour totally (the extra damage simply cancels the DEF out). Plus you get extra stun damage a well! And you can do this very cheaply if you don't have to pay for the first few dice of HKA. Likewise 12 DEF armour is more than twice as good as 6 DEF armour since it essentially eliminates any BOD damage from 90% of weapons. If you let people do this, then for a small number of points you get a warrior mage who is all but immune to normal weapons, but whose own weapons essentially ignore armour. A few more points spent on protection against magic and you get a combat machine that can only be stopped by another warrior mage, whose enhanced weapons are balanced against his opponent's enhanced armour. Now you CAN go this route: I have just finished my Runequest conversion to Hero where every character IS a magically enhanced warrior. But putting these rules dodges in FH essentially makes this the default, which is a truly dreadful idea. cheers, Mark

>>> A GM might also permit something similar with Continuous, I guess - the power automatically retargets the target wherever he's gone since the last phase each phase without a new attack roll or half-phase action. But it'd be a weird effect for a sigil that chases after the target instead of just plain staying on it.<<< I think you are mis-interpreting here. It's not like the power hangs around and then darts after the target in "its" phase. It's just on. In the darkness example quoted, the mage cannot dash off and regain the ability to make noise until the darkness vs hearing catches up with him again. It's on all the time - including segments in between actions, just as it would be if cast on an immobie object or hex. Likewise acid (often defined as a continuous attack) which is squirted onto a character does not hang around in blob in the air if he moves and then shoot off after the target and hit him again on the next phase: it's on the target all the time, it's just that burn damage is calculated on the attacker's phase. So I see no problem for a sigil to behave the same way. Of course, being magic, it doesn't have to be physically on him: it could hover about in an obvious way, like Dilbert's little lightning cloud. cheers, Mark