Gunrunner

Re: Moderately Large Creatures and DCV The DCV modifiers for larger creatures are totally inaccurate and ridiculous, at least for hand to hand combat. Think of it this way: If you look at things from a more extreme scale, what are the chances that an ant could attack a human being if that human is prepared for an attack? The ant would have no chance because the human has a much higher movement rate than that ant. Any human could easily remove itself from an ant's range of attack and then still have the range to squash that ant. A larger creature would have the same advantage because it's movement rate and reach are commensurate to it's size. If anything, a larger creature should have a bonus to it's CV to attack and defend against a creature of smaller size. Just my two cents.

Re: I need a name for a Robin Hood-like fantasy character Can you describe the confines in which you want the name? For example, do you want a name similar to "Smiling Fox", like "Mischievous Madcat" or do you want something different entirely?

Re: Magic 'Gift' . . . ? My solution to this problem is to make it so that spells cannot be cast unless they are fueled by an END reserve. So in effect, no one can cast a spell unless they have an END reserve (or mana pool, or whatever you want to call it). So in other words, having an END reserve becomes the Gift or "perk". Those with this reserve are the only ones who can learn to cast spells. Some may have the Gift, but very weak (10 END and 1 REC over a long period of time) while the Force may be strong in others (100 END and 15 REC). Hope this helps.

Re: a warrior's prowess, a thief's skill Okay, after some pondering I finally came up with a system to structure the use of Combat Skill Levels. I find that it retains enough flexibility to allow characters to have different fighting skills/styles, and prevents them from becoming over-specialized. I also believe that this system is quasi-realistic in the way that someone would learn how to fight. Let me know what you guys think. Characters can only apply to their Combat Value a number of given CSL's equal to that CSL's cost. The only exception to this rule is 8-point CSL's. The reasoning for this is that you can only gain so much skill with one weapon or fighting style before you begin gaining skill with other weapons or fighting styles. Mastering a weapon or fighting style involves being able to apply 10 Combat Skill Levels with that particular weapon or style. So for example, a warrior with a greatsword could add up to two 2-point CSL's (greatsword), three 3-point CSL's (swords), five 5-point CSL's (HtH combat), and any number of 8-point CSL's to his Combat Value. Even if he didn't have any 8-point CSL's he would still be considered a Master with the greatsword because he can apply 10 CSL's to his CV. If instead, he had no 2-point CSL's, but had two 8-point CSL's he would be considered a Master with all swords, since he can apply 10 CSL's to his CV with any type of sword. Note that this doesn't limit the type or number of CSL's someone may have, just how many he/she can use at one time. So as an example, this would make having more than two 2-point CSL's with one weapon generally useless unless he had Negative Skill Levels applied against him. That character could still benefit from having many 2 or 3-point CSL's with different weapons and weapon groups. When I do get my game going LordGhee, I'll be sure to post what's going on

Re: Rough Magic Looks good so far - simple, yet structured. It seems like it would be well-balanced as well. I can't say much more until I see a more fleshed-out version. I don't know why you would consider not posting it, most of the people that post on these forums are encouraging and helpful.

Re: Monsters, Minions, and Marauders: Opinions? I've found that the book is more tailored to a Turakian Age campaign as well. They provide balanced foes to match up against heroic-level characters. It covers all types of fantasy creatures as well as generic NPC templates. While some of the creatures here are more powerful than others (such as liches, giants and dragons), they are not quite as powerful as the demon princes and dragons in the Hero Bestiary. I'm not sure what you're asking in your last question, but there are universe-specific creatures in MMM such as the migdalar and mycetons.

Re: a warrior's prowess, a thief's skill I really like the ideas you all have presented; and they have all influenced the way I will handle CSL's. LordGhee, NuSoardGraphite and Outsider, you all seem to use variations of the same idea - one that I like very much. Marcdoc, I'll definitely keep your advice in mind when dealing with my players. Thanks all!

Re: a warrior's prowess, a thief's skill Hmmm, I have considered this before and wanted something more level-dependent. However, I'm sure this would work and it is much simpler. Maybe I'll set a NCM after 10 CSL's for x2 the cost, and again at 15 for x3 the cost. I can tell that Keith is probably a very good GM, so if a NCM for CSL's works for him then I'm sure it will work for me. Thanks for the suggestion, Squirrel

I'm planning on starting a new Fantasy Hero campaign soon, and I was toying with the idea of having CSL's, Skill Levels, and skills increase in character point cost as their values increase. Sort of a ramping cost, if you will. My idea for CSL's was this: Characters cannot start off with more than X Combat Skill Levels. Additional CSL's after character creation cost normal amount plus the number of current levels you have in character points divided by 2 (round up). Improving CSL's is still the normal cost in character points. Example: If your character has 4 3-pt CSL's and no 5-pt CSL's, then to buy another 3-pt CSL will cost (3+2) character points. A 5-level CSL will cost (5+2) character points. To change one of the 3-pt CSL's to a 5-pt CSL will cost only 2 character points. I would also do something similar for skills and skill levels. One reason I was thinking of doing this was because I don't want characters to become over-specialized in one area and to give them more incentive to diversify their characters and spend experience points in other facits. I believe that it is better to be skilled in many weapons or styles rather than really good with one weapon or style. A real-life warriors learns how to use several different weapons for different situations. Another reason for doing this is to create a mechanic that represents the fact that it becomes harder and harder to improve a skill the better you become with it. I have a bad feeling that if I don't do this, than some warrior-like characters won't spend their experience points on anything but Combat Skill Levels with one type of weapon. I know that some of you might say something like "talk to your players and let them know how you feel about this", but ultimately it's their decision on how they want to spend their experience points. I also know that some of you might probably tell me to put more emphasis and importance on skills that aren't combat-related, but I want to keep the campaign action-oriented with the option of using non-combat skills to achieve objectives. So therefore, I'm afraid that taking emphasis off of combat will change the flavor of the game entirely, which is something I don't want to do. There are many other RPG's that have mechanisms (although some unfortunately at the cost of flexability) that similarly make it harder to improve on skills as they get better with them, so perhaps this isn't such a bad idea. My question to you all who are more experienced GMs than I: Have you ever experienced a similar problem? And if you did, how did you handle it? Is there another way to keep a campaign with lots of combat-action as well as colorful, multi-dimensional player-characters? Can I have the best of both worlds?

Re: Does anyoen use spell-multipliers? I am for using the multipliers. There are several reasons I see why someone would not use power frameworks for a magic system. I used to use a multipower framework to give mages a point break and allow them to compete with warriors, but I've encountered a few problems and have come to believe that the .33 cost multiplier is better for these reasons: 1) Simplicity - It's a lot easier to tell new players that the spells they want have individual point costs and let them figure out how many they can take then explaining to them how power frameworks work. With a multipower's active point cost limit, you have to keep track of how many spells a player can have on at one time and sum up all the active point costs of these spells and make sure it doesn't go over their limit...too much micromanagement for my tastes. 2a) For multipowers, they only become cost-effective initially when all the powers share many of the same limitations. A varied magic system like the one in Grimoire would require many types of frameworks to account for all the different types of magic and their varying limitations. But this could be a good thing if you want to limit a wizard's choice in powers or make them weak until they gain enough character points to make their multipower truly effective. 2b) Also for multipowers, you could not have powerful effects that affect a very limited number of targets since such a spell would likely go over your active point cost limit. The raw effect of the spell would give it a high active point cost. But even if you add lots of limitations to make the power balanced and give it a low real point cost, you still couldn't use it because it's active point cost is higher than your multipower's active point cost limit. 3) If you use an EC, then all your spells would have to have a minimum active point cost equal to the EC pool cost. So in this case, to save a lot of points, you would have to spend a LOT of points. And you couldn't have any cheap spells in that framework. Not too good for heroic-level wizards. 4) As for VPP's, I just don't like using that style of magic. Also see reason #1 So in conclusion, I can see why the Turakian Age magic system was designed the way it was. The RSR limitation is what I believe really keeps a wizard in check when it comes to becoming too powerful.

Re: Length of a summon "The GM decides what constitutes a “task†for purposes of Summon. For combat, each Phase of fighting usually equals one task. For ordinary household chores, carrying loads, or pulling wagons, each day of service normally qualifies as one task. Keep common sense, dramatic sense, and considerations of game balance in mind." I agree with AlHazred. That is one of the dumbest rules I've ever seen in Hero. So you're telling me that a being that is supposedly "slavishly loyal" is only going to fight for around ten phases for the character summoning it and then take off??? I can't believe they put that in Revised. So as an EGO 10 summoner, I could have a summoned creature do ten days of back-breaking labor for me but my "fanatically devoted" creature has something against throwing more than ten punches at my enemy. Ya, that makes alot of sense

Re: Impervious to Magic Could you buy them as linked powers to make it cheaper?

Re: Impervious to Magic Desolidification would only protect against the physical effects of magic. You would have to link mental defense and power defense for total immunity I would think - mental defense to protect against Sorcery and power defense to protect against magical Drains and such. I know what you're saying about how you want the power to make your character invisible to the effects of all magic, but there are no absolutes in Hero. See page 250 of Fantasy Hero for some ideas with regards to absolute effects.

Re: The Passing of a Legend.. Andre Norton Just got done reading her biography. Yeah, guess she is a legend. Rest in peace.

Re: Points or $ I agree with this point. If players are doing something that wouldn't usually happen in real life, the best this to do is ask "Why don't people do this in real life?" and create a mechanism to use in your game that represents the answer to that question. In this case, giving long-term endurance penalties for carrying so much equipment would be an example of that "reality mechanism". There's nothing wrong with your characters wanting to replace their old equipment for something better and keeping their old equipment to sell; this would happen in real life. The problem is when your characters disregard the reality of how tiring it is to carry around hundreds of pounds of equipment! I must disagree with you on this. First off, there's nothing stopping a wizard from buying the same exact equipment that a fighter has. Both characters have the same access to the same equipment. Second, both a wizard and fighter start off with the same amount of money and character points, so there is no inherent inequality here. Third, wizards have a distinct advantage that fighters do not: Where as fighters have weapons that can be lost, damaged, and require maintenance, the wizards themselves are the weapon! Their weapons cannot conventionally be lost or damaged, nor do they rust or rot. Wizards are much more dangerous to imprison than fighers because you never know what they may have up their sleeves. As far as what you were saying about non-spellcasters being able to "pump points into skills", how is this different from wizards being able to pump points into spells and powers? Fighters have their strengths and weaknesses, as wizards have their own. The problem with D&D where player characters frequently discard their old weapons/equipment for new, better equipment is IMO not caused by the fact that equipment is payed for with cash. The real cause of the problem is oversaturation of magical equipment and weapons in a campaign. As long as you avoid this, your players will hold on to their finely-crafted weapons and armour. Magical items IMO should be rare rewards that are made more significant and mysterious by their rarety. If you constantly present your players with better weapons and equipment than what they have, then of course they're going to be constantly changing out their gear. Can you blame them?

Re: [Compilation] "to Fantasy HERO Conversions & Adaptations" Sweet posting, Questionman. Thanks for all your hard work putting this together How about Palladium's Rifts ?

Re: Turakian Age Freebies! They are there. Under "Free Stuff" => "Hero System Documents" all the way on the bottom under the Fantasy Hero section.

Re: Help with balancing fighters with magic users Another thing you can do is make spell components much more expensive or rare. This will reduce the consistency of the wizard, as he may not always be able to cast his most powerful spells.

Re: Ye Ole Wheel of Time MAGIC SYSTEM Nice write-up! One small detail you're missing though - When men and women are holding the one power, their senses are greatly sharpened. I remember one instance in the books that Rand would seize saidin and hold it just so he could see farther. It's just a small detail, but if you want to be accurate you should account for it. Otherwise great job.

Re: Combat Maneuvers I never liked the idea that you had to pay character points to perform a maneuver with a given effect that theoretically ANYONE should be able to do (even if they rarely succeed). There are a couple ways that anybody with a weapon that has an armor piercing point can make his attacks armor piercing (at least this is how I handle it): First, your character can make a Placed Shot to an unarmored/less armored portion of the body with an OCV penalty. This attack would either bypass armor or would be armor piercing, depending upon location and the coverage of armor. Second, you can create a manuever that anyone with an appropriate weapon can use. Pierce maneuver: OCV -3 / DCV -0, makes any attack with a weapon that has an impaling point Armor Piercing. This will make swords and spears more versatile weapons. The special effect of this attack maneuver can be described as requiring precise thrusting attacks to strike between the joints of armor, or a strong attack to pierce armor with the sharp point of an impaling weapon. This can also be used with axes or polearms that have armor piercing points on the back or top of it's head/tip.

Re: The Valdorian Age Yaaaay! VA is finished! Any word about when it'll be out in the stores? Could Allen tell us a something about the setting he hasn't mentioned before? What happened to all the races besides Humans? Are they still around? I'm really looking forward to getting VA when it comes out, tell us something plz! BTW, make the cover really cool, Frank Frazetta - like!

Re: Playing 3.5 after Fantasy Hero NM, I just read the description given at Steve Jackson's website

Re: Playing 3.5 after Fantasy Hero The setting book for GURPS fantasy is a bit more realistic and not as High Fantasy as the setting book for FH (Turakian Age). IIRC, GURPS fantasy is about a world that humans from the Middle Ages were somehow sucked into. (called Yrth) They still retain their real-world culture and practice real-world religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddism, etc. They explain different things like how Christianity and magic coexist, but the existence of real-world religions make it feel less like fantasy than I like. Turakian Age is a more typical High Fantasy world that has a lot more detail and flavor despite it's lack of originality. Don't get me wrong, I like TA. I just wish the setting was a bit less conventional. There was also an old GURPS fantasy setting that looked interesting, but I never got my hands on it. It was something like the Land of the Mad Gods. I read a little about it from the cover I saw on the GURPS site and it sounded really cool. Mudpyr8, do you or anyone else have this book? If you do, could you tell me a bit about the setting? I'm curious

Re: historically correct simulation of armour Cool, I'll check it out. Sorry I didn't notice your post before KS. Thanks for the info

Re: Bolstering the Fantasy Hero Grimoire Yes, thank you LL. I got a couple ideas from the material on that web page.