Legendsmiths

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. The idea that you might put on that much armor and add 20-30 lbs of gear (besides a primary weapon), is not a fun one. AFAIK, since we didn't have adventurers historically, and all warriors who marched any significant distance were not in heavy armor, it's unclear whether a case could be made that in the right situation someone would carry all that gear plus heavy armor. 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.

Jeebus Kriste people. The poster simply asked for weapon mass, not a discussion of mass vs. weight, or the basis of the metric system. Here's what you want to know. All of the weights are in pounds, but you can do the conversion. I can think of 3 definitive sources off the top of my head. 1. GURPS Low Tech (SJG). An excellent source not only for standard equipment, but its history and development. 2. System Reference Document (WotC). http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html All of the equipment in D&D is Open Gaming Licensed and free to use. Since I convert a lot of my adventures, we use the D&D gold standard (makes treasure easy to deal with), and use that EQ list since it is so exhaustive. Now, so that we don't have to get retardulously pedantic, I simply divide the weights by 2 to get a Hero/quasi-metric mass. Since Hero chars are stronger than most people, the difference relative to encumberance is negligable (10%). 3. And a 10 foot Pole (ICE). Incredibly detailed listing, including craft times and such. Very useful. However, money system is very different from D&D or anything else. However, it is a solid base. 4. Fantasy Hero. Be patient, there is a boatload of EQ with mass in FH which will be out next month. I hope that helps Seenar.

Is "Skewed Perspective" a -1/2 or a -1 limitation? I assume it can only be applied to Enhanced Senses and Detects.

We've been kicking around a similar idea, but in the interest of balance this is what we came up with. Magic is a VPP, but the "world" pays the cost of the pool, just as the "world" pays the cost of weapons and armor. Mages have to pay for the control cost, to which they can apply limitations. Spells are learned as 1 pt "uncommon weapon familiarities". No spell can exceed the AP cost of the pool as dictated by the control cost. Requires Skill Roll isn't used. Substitute "Side Effects only on crit failure" instead. This makes magic reliable, and more like a common attack. Optionally, require mages to have a focus without which they need to make a standard Magic Skill roll (with -1/10 AP as usual; CSLs may be added). Haven't played with it, but I imagine overally it would work quite nicely. Perhaps there is something here you can chew on as well.

Just fishing for an answer. Do you apply the flame effects separately against defenses or combined? If separately, I think buying a large power and making it reduced pen might be more appropriate, but that seems to cheapen the power significantly. Stepping back and looking at it from a meta standpoint (not realism or anything else), the flaming sword should be more deadly than a regular sword, and simply do more damage because of it.

A number of comments. 1. The game is cinematic. Forcing your players to second guess everything is adversarial and will not result in a cinematic experience. 2. D4C works against any attack. Read the FAQ. Against HtH attacks you only need to get out of range of the HtH and you are automatically missed. 3. Like Block, D4C must be declared before the attack roll is made. Obviously clear indication of where the attack is being made (i.e. the character must be threatened). If you want tension, don't tell the player how big the radius of effect is. I don't believe D4C is unbalancing. Because you end up prone and 1/2 DCV it isn't the best action for everyone. But when an Ogre is attacking a DCV 3 Mage, it isn't a bad idea. The Mage can make a DEX-1 roll and get out of the way, which is much better odds than getting practically automatically hit. Hopefully that makes enough time for someone else to step in. Take a look at Flying Dodge (maneuver). This effectively allows (as clarified by FAQ) the character to D4C without the 1/2 DCV penalty or a DEX roll. Even so, it is still a balanced maneuver. We have had a lot of fun since discovering D4C in all situations. Monsters use it, players use it, it's all balanced. It's cinematic... you give up your action to not be hit. If you don't have the MA maneuver, you have to make a DEX roll. Then you are at a disadvantage until your next action, and hopefully won't be mobbed by the other combatants. So, how about this: How about this... GM: The alien hurls his circular energy globe at you. Player: OK, I D4C behind cover GM: It lands where you were and opens up to reveal a 1 hex image of dancing bears singing Happy Birthday. Player: Whew! I thought it was a grenade. GM: Yeah, funny huh? Well now, the alien points some kind of device at you. Player: I dodge, +3 DCV! GM: A laser beam strikes you in the chest Player: Dammit, I wish my DCV were higher. GM: Yeah, well you can make sure that's true for your next character.

Referring to SuperBlue's 1d6/1d6 sword. Are defenses applied once or twice? That is, am I essentially rolling 2d6 damage or am I rolling 2 1d6 damage effects, which is obviously much easier to defend against.

I think instead of opening it up to any -2 limitations, I think you should get specific. That's where the flavor comes from. If you leave it open ended it will feel empty and it will be hard to distinguish between the two. As for the END thing. I use a limitation called "Piety Based Power -3/4" in addition to "Divine Stricture, -1/4". Piety Based Power This is essentially a variant of the Ablative limitation. If a cleric draws on a lot of divine power, he is less likely to do it the next time. His deity doesn't give out power simply because his followers demand it. They have to have earned the right to use it, and use it wisely not carelessly.

For realistic armor weights look no further than GURPS Low-Tech. GURPS fan or not, it is a great resource. With Hero STR the way it is, armor weight is almost negligable. Even with a modified ENC system (based on casual STR), it still doesn't work out to that much of a big deal. A full suit of plate armor weighs 60-70lbs (27-32 kg). Even a 15 STR guy (lift 200kg) will not be all that affected by it since his 10-25% range is 20-50kg. Using my casual STR system such armor would be worth -2 or -3 DEX/DCV. I then allow characters to buy Armor Expert (3 pts) which reduces the ENC Penalties by 1 level, including movement and END. Another alternative would be to have a "Maneuver Penalty" ala D&D based on DEF/2 (round down). Then allow players to buy penalty skill levels to offset the Maneuver Penalty. Movement could be penalized as DEF/3 in inches. The only problem with this is STR doesn't enter into the picture. Armor could be defined to have Min STR (DEF*4). If you can't meet the Min STR, you are at -1 DEX/DCV for every 5 pts of STR. This is very similar to using a weapon that is too heavy. Movement is -1" per -2 penalty. That way, full plate has a STR of 32. at 12 STR the character would be -4 DEX/DCV. They could then buy Armor Expert to reduce this to a -3. I also feel that shields should have a Min STR, especially if they are going to be used as weapons (i.e. Shield Bash).

Agreed, relative to the DC scale in hero, barrel length has no effect. However, you can represent the effect of barrel length by giving a +1 vs. Range since the round has more velocity and may eek out a little more stability.

Agreed (barrel length increasing power), but in a system where 1 DC represents a doubling of energy, the length of the barrel doesn't really have an effect. The 1700 vs. 1400J energy is only a 25% increase in energy which really doesn't impact the DC of the weapon. So, my comments are centered around the effect of barrel length relative to DC. I also agree with Arthur that GURPS High Tech is an excellent source for gun stats. The GURPS fire combat system is an excellent simulation of reality. Not always appropriate for a fast-paced cinematic cyberpunk firefight, but a really great way to benchmark weapons and their effects. It's one of the few systems I feel that realistically distinguishes pistols, rifles, shotguns (slug & shot), and automatic fire. Cinematic action is often challenging, however, as most people end up dead. Hence, why I am playing Hero.

The longer barrel on the MP5 isn't going to do much to the round. Longer barrels really don't help much unless they are rifled, causing the round to spin. A round's damage potential is dependent on the weight of the round, the shape of the round, and the amount of propellant. A pistol round contains far less propellant but generally has a heavier grain (weight) bullet than a rifle round. Most of a rifle round is propellant. For example, a 9mm round generates 280 ft-lbs with a velocity of 1047 ft/sec using a 115 grain bullet. A 7.62x39mm round generates 1180 ft-lbs with a velocity of 2062 ft/sec using a 125 grain bullet. A .45 ACP generates 362 ft-lbs with a velocity of 939 ft/sec using a 185 grain bullet. ft-lbs is probably your best indication of "DC", however the shape of the round plays a role, as does hydrostatic shock, and tumbling. Bottom line is rifle rounds are 2-4x as powerful as the pistol round of the same caliber. This would equate to +1 or +2 DC. My comment was to clarify the chart that was posted had mixed the round types in by caliber without indicating which were rifle rounds and which weren't. Some people may have been confused by the .22/5.7mm that did 1d6 (a pistol round, and generous at that) and the .223/5.56mm which is a rifle round (as used in M4 or M16 among others). These are very different rounds of the same caliber (roughly .22), and I wanted to caution readers not to assume you could have a 5.56mm pistol using the same round as the M16 (this might be a bad example since a pistol was actually made but is extremely rare and not all that effective). I think the chart is actually fairly accurate. I might bump the rifle rounds 1 DC.

Just be aware that the Dark Champs chart mixes rifle and pistol calibers.

Having played in many FH campaigns with no special magic mechanics, the mage you've created is typical. It sounds like that is what you are going for, however I just want to share that essentially most every mage would be like this, especially using standard END rules. Combat begins, the mage throws up his FF, Flys out of harms way and then starts dishin' out the love. He's really just a dark age superhero, and for me at least that got old pretty quick. YMMV, I just want to provide some anecdotes for what you are getting into. This is definitely a flash-bang type mage in a world, it seems, where magic simply is, and the metaphysics concerning its use are either unknown or uninteresting to its denizens.

Sing it Old Man. MP's make limitations just about pointless. When you divide the cost of the spell by 10, why limit yourself by dividing by 11. An EC has a much more reasonable multiplier effect, but doesn't really work for low cost spells. That's why, in my system, I make a distinction between standard (5pt per effect) and special (1 or 2 pts per effect) powers.

Yamo, seems to me you are cobbling together a bunch of house rules to create the feel you are looking for. A mana pool instead of END, a way to handle duration, all in a power framework. These are all issues I've seen before. I think you are on the right track, but I think you need to pay heed to the Old Man. I echo his words of wisdom. Watch out for low active point spells, they will become a challange to balance.

I like Sbarron's idea. I've also seen proposed on the forums a system using VPP that requires the mage to find the spells and add them to his spellbook. You could easily mimic the D&D spell management system and once they are in the book, the mage can use them in his VPP. Only all the mage to change the VPP once a day, or 15 min per 10 active points, or whatever. As for "house rules", Hero is the Gamer's Toolkit. It says so right on the cover. With GM permission, the "legality" of a particular power or solution is irrelivant. You need to determine what feel you want to have for your magic system. The reason I created my magic system is BECAUSE there weren't systems out there that worked the way I wanted them to. GURPS didn't, D&D didn't , Ars Magica didn't, Earthdawn didn't, RoleMaster didn't, Warhammer didn't, Talislanta didn't, Dark Age Mage didn't, and so on. Each magic system is creates a particular feel that is often inexorably tied to the game world. If I wanted just the right feel for my world I HAD to create my own. But creating a system from scratch is much more challenging than creating one from an existing framework like Hero. So, I would refute your odds that there is another system out there that does everything you want to do, there certainly wasn't for me. I also take some small offence that my system is an inelegant kludge, but potayto potahto. 100% legal is another issue, and I think you will find that rules lawyering isn't what Hero is all about, otherwise you may find yourself beating your head against the wall arguing about a -1/4 limitation or something equally minor. And, for the record, the characteristics I used were presented in previous editions of Fantasy Hero material so this is nothing new. The strength of Hero is the ability to extend it. "To list is to limit" meaning it isn't a great idea to provide a rule for everything, much like our modern legal system. The GM is the one who determines the appropriateness or legality of a particular ruling, especially since context and setting have more impact on the rules than anything else. My suggestion is to go with a VPP solution with some arbitrary limitations (ala Limited Power) that create the pacing you want. Just be careful with movement powers and defenses as they are very cheap and unbalancing.

In one of our current campaigns we have a 117pt Necromancer. I'm attaching his character sheet to give you some perspecitve. If you think this is an acceptable power level, then I think you might have a solution.

Yamo, I used to be in the same boat. If you are willing to stretch the rules a little take a look at http://www.tekhed.com/hero/rulesindex.php We've used these rules in a Cyberpunk setting and two current Fantasy games, and it is a lot of fun. Using this system, Hero is now our fantasy system of choice. Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the system, especially if you find anything confusing. I also encourage you to join one of my two sessions at Origins and GenCon using this system.

Agreed. Making the room the "right size" for the encounter is more important than the real world dimensions.

Or simply recognizing that with 1m hexes you can move your Running inches as a half-phase action. Other than that, using 1m hexes isn't a big deal.

Yeah, bring it. Let's solve dem probos.

That sounds pretty good, if you are trying to emulate D&D. My only concern with broad Active Point limits is that for the most part they don't work. Example: I am limited to 30 active points. I can create a 2d6 RKA or I can create a 15 rPD/rED force field, or 10" of 0 END Flight. In fact, I can have all 3 allowing me to stand-off, impervious to most any attack, and deal out death. Active point limits don't work on "special" powers like movement and defenses because they are so cheap. Other than that, I think your VPP idea works fine.

Yeah, I think a good fantasy game needs to start a low points just to have an element of realism. If you start at 150 pts it is really hard to feel threatened by common-folk.

The reason for not including all of the component limitations is that by-and-large it isn't really that informative, especially because the system isn't 100% "by the book". When you look at it, I'm essentially giving "Based on ECV", an advantage, for free. I'm also making the spellcasting roll part of the attack roll, something that isn't done. The mana used is reduced by the amount of success when casting a spell, for which there are no limitations that provide this. On top of that, standard spells are essentially in a power framework similar to an elemental control. So, when all is said and done it would actually be more confusing to provide all the lims than to simply state what they are. There's a lot of handwaving and fudging going on, but it's not all completely off the deep end. I don't want to include all of this in the normal document, because these limitations are effectively captured when I talk about spellcasting. However, here's what I based it on... The basic lims are: ½ Phase Action (-0) Concentration (-1/4) Gestures (-1/4) Incantations (-1/4) Increased ENDx3 (incl. Long Term END) (-1 1/2) Side Effects (Extreme, Affects both character/environment, Only on crit fail) (-3/4) Reduced Range but No Range Penalty (I made this up) (-0) Combined Attack/Casting Roll based on ECV vs ECV/DCV/3 as appropriate (-0) Limited by POWER (-1/4) Personal Focus or Consumable Focus Required (-1/4) Total -3 1/2 For Special Spells, Increased END is worth (-2) because while the multiplier is actually x6, the interaction with Limited by POWER prevents them from being high active point spells so I don't feel the full x6 (which would be -3 with long term) is worth it. Total -4 Now, where's the -7? Why are additional Standard Lims doubled? The answer lies inside power frameworks. Consider the following: Fire Elemental Control: 20 pts EC Slot 1 40 - Fire EC (20) = 20 pts EC Slot 2 40 - Fire EC (20) = 20 pts EC Slot 3 40 - Fire EC (20) = 20 pts Apply the limitations to all of those. 20 / 4.5 = 4. So, for 20 points total, you just got three 40 active point powers. 40 / 4 = 10, meaning that the active point cost for each slot was effectively divided by 10. Multipower: 40 pts MP Slot 1 40 / 5 = 8 MP Slot 2 40 / 5 = 8 MP Slot 3 40 / 5 = 8 Apply the limitations to all of those. 40 / 4.5 = 9. 8 / 4.5 = 2. So, for 15 points total you just got three 40 active point powers. 40 / 2 = 20, which is a huge active point multiplier. Notice what happened to the value of limitations. In each case the limitations value was more than doubled or quintupled. A common restriction on power frameworks is that no "special" powers (defenses and the like) can be put inside them, at least not multipowers, without GM permission. I agree with that, they are cheap enough as is. Now, ECs and MPs have their own quirks associated with them. Additionally, they're very mechanical. That lead me to dream up essentially a new power framework for this spell system, with the restriction that only non-special spells can be placed insided it. I created a POWER stat to reflect the MP reserve or EC base. We've tweaked it a little, but the result is still pretty much the same. It is a limiter on the amount of power you can command. Then, trying to keep things simple, I said to simply double the value of all limitations applied to standard spells. This is very similar to the EC effect, and certainly much more "fair" (IMO) than the cheapness of a MP. Voila. There is a certain amount of fudge-factor here, but all in all I think it is relatively balanced. Like all power frameworks it makes powers cheap, which means that in high-point games they are going to be very effective. The flip side of that is that in low-point games, even normals can have some amount of power. So, with this system, you can actually make a dabbler: POW 2 (2 pts) No increased magic stats Spellcasting (3 pts) Ego 11 (2 pts) Total: 7 pts. No spell can be more than 2 real points so even if you gave him 4 spells he still will only have spent 15 pts total on magic. His spellcasting is 15-, but none of his spells will be more than 2 motes, 3 if it is a special spell. Thus, on a 13- he pays minimum ESS, no long term, and can command about 15 Active points of power. This is good for TK, an RKA, a small entangle, light, basic detects, skills (e.g. lockpicking 15- is a 15 AP special power), leaping, etc. Pretty effective all-in-all (now I want to build this guy). Using traditional FH, he would have to spend 3-4 pts per spell to do the same thing, and he would still have to buy spellcasting and increased stats. I know I used some abbreviations and some short math. Let me know if this doesn't make sense.