Gunrunner

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? First off cyst, you assume that we all believe that it is necessary to address issues of racism and sexism in television, movies, and books when some medium attracts nation-wide attention. A "moral responsibility" of the media if you will? Well you're wrong, because I don't believe it. And not only do I not believe it, but I think that such an assumption sows the seeds for TRUE evil and I'll explain why. I believe that my country (the United States) was founded on fundamental concepts of freedom. One of these concepts involves the free exchange of ideas and yes, freedom of speech. I believe that any person has the right to express him/herself anyway he/she wants without fear that some whiney group of snot-nosed, politically-correct hippies will control what is said by that person because A) they feel that this person NEEDS to be controlled because they have too much influence over our population or they feel that person has some kind of "moral responsibility" to address the latest fad, politically-correct agenda approved by said nazis...errr, hippies. Now I believe that your intentions may be good cyst, but to force people or organizations to change the way they express themselves is setting a very dangerous precedent. And to an American, it's treason. Speaking of Nazi's cyst, you may believe (and understandably I might add) that it was racial and anti-semetic propaganda that was one of the most important factors in the creation of the Nazi regime, but I tell you this: NO amount of racist propaganda was the cause of Hitler's rise to power. It was fear - fear to oppose the wave of Nazi propaganda because other organizations and ordinary citizens were not protected by any free speech amendments that would allow them to speak out against Hitler and give them the confidence and support to oppose him. And what happened to those in Germany that did oppose him?...well I won't get into that, but it's no mystery that the First Amendment would have protected the rights of various organizations who opposed Hitler during that time, and would have kept Hitler's political party from becoming dangerously powerful. A writer for the St. Petersburg Times whose name I don't remember said "Give the government the ability to control free speech is giving it carte blanche to censor anything and everything." Nazi-controlled Germany is a perfect example of what happens when you give government such power. As a free thinking individual, I want every person and organization to have the right to speak and express their imagination without fear of social or government pressure. "Oh no! You shouldn't have campaigns with evil races!" Baloney. To censor, to control what is said and what is NOT said is to follow a path of ignorance; and moral relativism aside, if anything in this universe has a strong link to evil, it is ignorance. There is no one in Heaven or Hell except the Almighty Himself that can tell me what I should or shouldn't say or how I should run a Hero campaign. So don't tread on me!

Re: prerequisites as a limitation Thanks for the input everyone.

I wanted to create talents/powers/perks that had prerequisites a character must meet in order to possess them. Example: Let's say I wanted to create a talent (pick anything) that had a prerequisite Dexterity 15. In other words, in order for a character to be able to buy this talent, he/she would have to have a Dexterity of 15 or higher. My question is this: Is this worth any points as a limitation? On one hand, it forces a character to increase or have their dexterity at 15 or higher if they want to possess it. On the other hand, once a character has a Dex 15 or higher, it doesn't really limit the use of the talent in any way. So would this be a -0 limitation? -1/4 limitation perhaps? In your opinion, would the limitation be greater if the prerequisite were more stringent, say requiring a Dexterity of 20 or higher? What's everyone's opinion or official word on something like this? Is there anything similar to this in the Ultimate Brick where characters with great STR can do various feats of strengh? It seems like there would be some prerequisite STR necessary to do something like crush coal into a diamond.

Re: Combat Balance You just answered your own question, bud

Re: Ncm:15 Personally, I would allow the characters to put their NCM limiters to whatever characteristic they want. As far as saying that such would make HERO into D&D, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Players still have a LOT of control over how they want to make their characters, especially if you allow them to pick which characteristics on which to place their NCM limiters. They can still have whatever value they want for each characteristic, it would just encourage more unique characters. I'd be more apt to call it HERO with a touch of D&D. As far as your scale Rob: yes, that is kinda what I had in mind

Re: Ncm:15 But then I suppose you'd have the mathmaticians trying to figure out the most efficient cost for Dex based on whether it would be better to buy CSL's or Dexterity at some given value Can't win it seems. Another thing you can try is to have characters roll randomly for their own unique normal characteristic maxima. This would give some variety to characters, as they all have their own distinct limitations in different characteristics. A slow witted warrior may have a high NCM for STR (19 for example), but a low NCM for intelligence (13 perhaps) - it is easier for him to become stronger than smarter.

Re: Ncm:15 There's only two real solution to preventing all characters from raising their characteristics up to the NCM. 1) Don't have a NCM, which has it's own problems in maintaining realistic characteristic values and I don't suggest to anyone for a FH campaign, or 2) Gradual cost increases. For example, the cost increase for Dex would follow this pattern starting at Dex 11: 1 cp, 2cp, 3cp, 4cp, 5cp...etc. For Strenth, it would be like this: 1cp, 1cp, 1cp, 2cp, 2cp, 2cp, 3cp, 3cp, 3cp, 4cp...etc. So for a Dex 16 it would cost 21 points total, and to go to Dex 17 would cost that character 7 points more. For a Strengh 16 it would cost that character 9 points, and to go to Strenth 17 would cost 3 points more. Doing it this way works in the way that there is no defined threshold where characteristics suddenly jump up in point cost. This gives the player no real "bargain" characteristic value and encourages them to diversify their characteristics based on their level of dedication rather than point cost efficiency. A flat characteristic maximum of 20 for humans would be fine since it would cost so many points to have a Dex 20 that only the truly dedicated would bother (55 character points total I believe)

Re: Magic Skill Levels I believe that is the point of Magic Skill Levels - to encourage players to buy many types of magic skills by discounting the price instead of specializing in one school of magic. Same goes with normal Skill Levels. The more magic skills you have, the more reason to buy 5 point MSL's to increase them rather then improve them individually.

The Charges limitation in 5th edition states that if a character wants a power with Charges to use END, then the Power takes an additional -1/2 Limitation. If a power with the Charges limitation is constant and costs endurance, do I need to modify the limitation value with the continuing charges option? I want to design a constant power that can only be used so many times per day, but costs END, and the character controls when it ends by ceasing to pay END. Is the limitation value modified at all by the fact that it is constant? Normally it is via continuing charges option, but if it costs END to maintain and it stops working once the END cost isn't paid then what? Thanks in advance for your help

Re: Character Posting Game: Restart That is strange that your hellish character came out to 999 points. That upside down is 666, the mark of the DEVIL! Muahahahaaaa!!!

Re: Y R axes better than swords??? Here was a big discussion on the subject that KeithCurtis helped point out... http://www.herogames.com/oldForum/FantasyHero/000269.html The poster is saying exactly what I feel about this topic. Quote from Roland, and I agree most whole-heartedly: "As a matter of realism, it might be reasonable to have some weapon types distinctly superior to others. But, if you are going for realism, swords should be superior to other weapons, not inferior. As a matter of history, they were the HTH weapon of choice in cultures from Japan to Spain for several centuries." Sorry for the triple post, this is my last post until I'm prompted to respond

Re: Y R axes better than swords??? Oh yeah Keith, I think I know why you're more prone to break a sword rather than an axe in a strike. An axe has a round handle for the most part. Because it is round, it distributes the force of the blow more evenly amongst the shaft to reduce the chances that all the force is focused on one area of the shaft and breaking it at that point. The thin shape of a blade does not allow for much distribution of force. Therefore it is more likely to focus the force of a strike on an area of the blade, breaking it because the force is too great on that section

Re: Y R axes better than swords??? I understand that because axes have most of their weight on the end of the shaft, that they'll do more damage than a sword - granted. And some of you even said that it takes a strong person to wield an axe effectively - okay. And it's been said that swords are more versatile than axes - I agree. Swords are easier to wield because of their balance as well as their ability to slash or stab. I guess I just wanted to know why Fantasy Hero didn't take this into account by perhaps giving swords a +1 OCV or a lower STR minimum - that's all. I believe a sword can be wielded faster (if not more damaging) than an axe of equal size, and I just wanted other people's imput on this and see if they had a legitimate reason why this wouldn't be so, or perhaps why this wasn't represented in the book. I know I can change the rules in the book to whatever I want when running a campaign, and I know the rules are not set in stone. I was just asking out of curiousity.

Does anyone else have a problem with axes being blatantly better than swords in the main book and Fantasy Hero? I don't like that too much. A short sword does 1d6 damage with a STR minimum of 10 while a small axe does 1d6+1 damage with a STR minimum of 8. Why??? Do you really need at least average/slightly above average STR to use a short sword effectively? I'm not sure Frodo would even have a STR of 10 to use Sting. I usually give swords a +1 OCV bonus to represent that they are balanced and can be wielded quicker because of that.

Re: Dwarf Martial art Look people, just like I mentioned in my post: THERE IS A DWARVEN MARTIAL ART IN FANTASY HERO! Get the book, it's very useful and has lots of good information.

Re: Speed in FH I can give you a reason not to change anything: Characters with high SPDs have the ability to move quickly - that's it. That's what you pay character points for and that's exactly what you get. However - like the Cheetah - they run out of steam very quickly. In other words, just because someone can move faster than everyone else, doesn't mean he has more energy and endurance to maintain that level of quickness. If he wants that he has to buy more END and/or a higher REC. Like I said, you get exactly what you pay for - no more, no less. You can look at it this way as well if you'd like: The additional use of END for characters with a high SPD serves as a check for them to keep them balanced with characters with lower SPD's - as additional SPD provides a tremendous benefit to a character.

Re: Dwarf Martial art Yeah!!! DWARFY STYLE BABY!!! Sorry, just had to. Anyways, there is a Dwarven martial art style under the skills section of Fantasy Hero. Have you checked it out?

I was just wondering if any of you GM's out there put any limits on the number/type of CSL's a player can give his character when first created. And if so, what are they? The reason I ask is because I just don't like the idea of players making characters with 15 2-point OCV CSL's in one weapon. It just doesn't seem right for characters who dedicate some of their character points toward more expensive CSL's to increase their DCV, which become useless against a huge (and inexpensive) OCV bonus. Combat just becomes a matter of whoever goes first usually wins, since no one can effectively defend against someone with a +15 to their OCV. I'm just trying to find a good method to preserve game balance, and give players reasons to buy more expensive CSL's. I do have my own method, but I just want to know how others handle it in the case that others have better ideas I can use.

Re: Shelf life for potions and scrolls I can definitely understand that you may not like the limits imposed with the Delayed Effect advantage, as it doesn't make much sense in that it limits the number of potions that you can use at a time when you should be able to make as many as you want if you have the resources to do so. I justify this limit however by saying that potions emanate magical energies, and by having too many in close proximity, all the concentrated magical emanations would cause a dangerous, explosive alchemical reaction with the potions. I do agree with you in that potions and the Delayed Effect advantage aren't very compatible.

Re: Shelf life for potions and scrolls Greatwyrm, Outsider, did you read my posts at all? Outsider, you started off with "I don't know what's official...", but I just told you what's official! That's why I quoted from FH Grimoire. And Greatwyrm, you said you you don't like "blowing points" for one-use items. That was the whole point of my above posts, you're NOT "blowing points" for one-use items. Please read my posts. I'm trying to put your worries to rest but you're not seeing it!!!

Re: Monster/Race: Frost Giant (Lesser Niefel Giant) One thing to note: You don't need to give your giant a rock-hurling power. He can hurl large rocks because he has a STR 45, not because you gave him a power that allows him to. It's redundant; that's why he has a high STR. You're giving him a power he already has.

Re: Shelf life for potions and scrolls Here's the quote from page 6 of FH Grimoire: "In the Turakian Age setting, alchemists can have, for the base +1/4 value of Delayed Effect, no more than INT/2 of his own potions available for use at any time ("available for use" includes giving them to another person friendly to him, but not selling them to a stranger)." I believe all the potions in the Grimoire have the Delayed Effect advantage at the 1/2 level, where one can have a number of potions available for use equal to his/her INT.

Re: Shelf life for potions and scrolls I'm not sure I understand the problem. You said you don't like characters having to pay character points for disposable magic items like potions and scrolls, but that's not entirely accurate. According to FH Grimoire under the rules for Alchemy, you only pay character points for the ability to make and use magic potions and scrolls (well, they don't mention scrolls but I'm sure you could apply the same rules since they basically have the same effect). Once you pay for the ability, you can make as many potions/scrolls you want without paying anymore character points, but only have a limited number available for use. If you use them up, as long as you have the components and take the time and effort to make them, you can make new potions without the need to pay character points. Also according to FHG, the potions you sell don't count against the maximum that you can have "ready" and available for use according to the delayed effect rules. So you could make some good money as an Alchemist by making and selling potions. I know making permanent magic items is different, but beyond that I don't understand where the gripe is.

Re: Character creation problems solved Good ideas guys I've implemented some of them in my campaign already. Keep the suggestions coming!

Re: What the heck is a Migdalar? If anyone has Fantasy Hero Grimoire, there's a picture of one on the very last page after the index. At least I'm almost certain that's a Migdalar from the descriptions given.