steph reacted to Scott Ruggels in combat tracking sheet
What I used to do was to make a list of characters ordered by DEX top to bottom, and from left to right I would write the segments. For phases that each character would act, I would put a circle. I would use a coin to track what segment it was and call out each character. This list was either on a sheet of paper or a corner of the battle map behind the GMs screen. With today’s tools, you could probably generate print outs like this for each planned Combat easily.
steph got a reaction from Scott Ruggels in Hero System (French) online.
Hello everybody i want to start as a gm a fantasy hero story in french and via online.
bonjour tout le monde je voudrais commencer une campagne de fantasy hero pour septembre via online. J’ai jamais utilisé de plareforme web pour jouer à hero ou un autre jeu de rôle. Je prendrais le reste du mois de août afin de créer et réfléchir vos personnages et de vous expliquer le monde proposé. Je vais aussi tenter de me familiariser avec une plateforme de jeu. Si vous êtes intéressé contactez-moi, pour commencer par un rendez vous sur camera et de discuter du monde et d’un background pour vos personnages.
steph reacted to Killer Shrike in Hero Designer
It is a quality piece of software and definitely (more than) worth its $25 asking price IMO if you are either a GM or the type of player who likes just making characters for fun.
It has what I consider to be a very mild learning curve (but I'm probably not the best gauge for that). It is a literal tabula rasa when first opened with no character selected...
You get started by either selecting an existing character sheet from disk (if you have downloaded one, for instance) or by making a new character selected from the types of characters HD has the character creation rules for...such as 6e standard superheroic or heroic, or a vehicle, base, etc...
Once you've picked the type of character, you are presented with a tabbed interface and you basically go from tab to tab filling in the parts of your character...
Note: I changed my preferences to have the tabs go down the right side, so your UI would look slightly different out of the box (if i recall correctly they default to run across the top), but it should be equally as obvious what the tabs are regardless.
ProTip: I would recommend saving your progress frequently as you go (Ctrl+S), as you should for any long form content development.
When you want to see a character sheet for the character, using the "Current Character" menu option select an Export Template and Preview the character sheet.
There are lots of export templates, targeting different options such as html (viewed / printed using your browser of choice), plain text, rtf, etc. Some come w/ HD and a lot more are available in the downloads section of this site, catering to different levels of verbosity, style preferences, and so on. When you are getting started, I would recommend a default HTML template and you can get more discerning later when you have a better idea of what you want.
Personally, I use custom html templates nearly exclusively, but do sometimes output other formats when i have a particular reason to.
After you have the basics down (make a standard character), HD offers a plethora of other features if you want or need to get fancier. You can turn a "character" into a template from which you can make future characters...for instance imagine you made a "Goblin" character representing a baseline gobbo for your setting...you could make it into a template from which you could later create a new specific named goblin and add on to the baseline...you could go further and have layers of templates that stack one upon the next, such as a baseline gobbo template, a gobbo champion template built on top of that, and a gobbo chief template built on top of that, layering up the abilities from one to the next. I think the utility of this is fairly obvious in settings where you have lots of stock characters which are mostly defined by what they are plus some individualization, such as most fantasy settings.
You can also make or use prefabs, the term used by the app for lists of pre-made abilities, gear, etc, which can be loaded up and used conveniently within the tabs for skills, talents, powers, equipment to quickly whip up characters without having to copy and paste common effects (such as your campaign's definition of a long sword or basic fireball spell, etc) from one to next.
Pro Tip: heavy use of prefabs can put memory pressure on the app, so I suggest loading up the ones you need when you need them.
One of my favorite features is the ability to define and reuse custom campaign settings that can be applied to all characters in a given campaign. This is hugely convenient and offers a lot of flexibility and is worth checking out if you get that far. I use this feature very heavily; one of the first things I do when setting up a new campaign is go into HD and make a campaign ruleset and then bang out a few baseline characters for that campaign (such as average person, average PC, average "thug" opposition, etc) as part of the dialing in process.
And so on...the summary is HD is basically an industrial grade power tool for Hero System character creation and management (an aspect of HD that doesn't get talked about as much but which is in my opinion its most significant value add), and like many power tools it does have its sharp edges and beginners traps, but it richly rewards time spent learning its nuances.
My user preferences menu:
I no longer remember what the defaults are, but I recommend upping the max RAM allowed to the app using the conveniently provided slider if you are in the habit of keeping a bunch of characters open (such as all of the PC's of your campaign and the current crop of NPC's / bad guys) and have them auto-load on HD start.
steph reacted to Scott Ruggels in Combat Tracker
I have used a corner of the battle mat and a Pente stone as a move able marker. Just list the participants in order of dex. And put their phases after their names. Move the stone from top to bottom. Calling out who moves. You can use a non cubic die, or a different colored stone to indicate a held action, or an abort.
steph got a reaction from Panpiper in How much interest would there be out there for a PBP Fantasy Hero game?
Hey i am interested !
steph reacted to mallet in haymaker for sneak attack
I think you have to decide what a "sneak attack" is in your game.
A) Is a sneak attack a "mystical" ability that only Thieves can do because D&D said so, so many years ago?
B ) Is a sneak attack a "skill" that anyone can learn?
C) Is sneak attack a maneuver that anyone can attempt?
Then it is also important to breakdown what exactly a sneak attack is and does. How does it work in your game? Is it just "magical" bonus damage for attacking someone from behind when they don't expect it? Or is it taking the time to skillfully attack someone to avoid their armor? Is it being skilled at making "called shots" to vital places on their body when they don't expect it?
Depending on the answer to both of those questions will help you decide what type of Sneak Attack build is best for your game.
One build might be a simple "Deadly Blow"
Another might be a Naked Advantage (Armor Piercing)
Another might be Skill Levels to hit vital body parts on the hit location chart
Another might be a Haymaker
Another might be a Naked Advantage (AVAD (regular PD), Does Body)
Another might be a Martial Arts maneuver for a type of offensive strike or something
There a dozens of ways to build a sneak attack ability in Hero, you just need to decide how it works in your game, and who can attempt it. Once you know those two things, a logical build should follow.
steph reacted to Duke Bushido in Combat maneuvers
I was cool with everything in this conversation-- even though, as stated, _I_ don't do it, I accept that for whatever reason, other people do-- I would, after that, like to point out that it's not a matter of getting caught up in the name of the maneuver.
There is a huge matter of "when you joined the game."
A lot of us who don't do this joined with the early editions, with rules stating things like this:
Champions 1e, p 32:
"Haymaker: This is basically an all out punch, and takes an extra segment for its execution"
Further, there was the build of the maneuver and the damage of the maneuver. From the same edition:
Combat Maneuver................. OCV..........DCV...................Damage
(both Haymaker and Kick take an extra segment to perform)"
The 2e rules are identical, with the following addition placed nowhere near where it should have been, but findable enough on p 47
"Other maneuvers can have flexible effects also. A haymaker can be a double handed smash, a kick, or a full uppercut. "
This was the first point I ever questioned Haymaker, really-- I mean, I think we all came to the game already knowing what a "haymaker" was, as it's not an uncommon term, at least not in the US, and often applies to brawls, boxing, and other fights. Or I could be old enough to be out of touch and that there really are very few people today familiar with the terminology used for actually going out and beating the crap out of each other. Seriously: it's possible. I mean, I'm sure a lot of folks here grew up in an age where it wasn't even legal to return a blow to your attacker, or actually doing it to make the bullying stop. No; I'm not being sarcastic here: I'll be sixty in a few days, and I openly admit that I could be so out of touch as to not realize the extent to which modern urbanites have become unfamiliar with the terms of daily that were once pretty common.
But at this point, I questioned Haymaker (the maneuver) because it said it could be a kick. After studying it, I found nothing had changed, really. I mean, I never minded that it did x1.5 STR because that was already something that was open to characters _anyway_ via the Kick maneuver, and it sort of played by Kick rules: took an extra Phase and CV penalties. The lack of an OCV penalty, I always felt, was offset by the significant increase in DCV penalties. Further, that big dent in DCV reinforces the image of the barnyard swing quite nicely, that long moment when you're wide open as you reach back behind your other elbow to bring everything from your knees up into that one wild blow....
At any rate: Haymaker really didn't do anything that you couldn't do without it.
Then 3e happened, and it had _this_ to say about Haymaker:
"This is basically an all out punch, and takes an extra Segment to execute. If a hero states on Segment 6 that he wants to do a Haymaker, the blow won't land until the end of Segment 7, after all heroes in Segment 7 have taken their action. "
So.... pretty much the same thing that the two previous editions had to say about it, and still nothing that wasn't available to a character already (via Kick). Heck, even Kick in 3e tied itself to Haymaker in the description noting that "This Maneuver takes one extra Segment to execute, like Haymaker. "
4e added some clarity by noting that damage bought as Hand-to-Hand attack did not increase with Haymaker, but that the Strength-derived dice _did_, and the HTH dice would (unmultiplied) add to that (Champions 4e, p73).
You have to go all the way to p 154 to get the 4e definition of Haymaker:
This is basically an all-out punch, and takes an extra Segment to execute. If a character states onSegment 6 that he wants to do a Haymaker, the blow won't land until the very end of Segment 7, after all characters in Segment 7 have taken their action. "
_Straight_ out of 3e, almost verbatim ("character" replaced "hero," presumably because 4e Champions was just a bit tacked onto the end of the Hero System Rulebook, and they were trying really hard to avoid anything that might suggest a style of play).
p 159 explains, clearly, that if a character is both Pushing and performing a Haymaker that the Haymaker dice ((STRx1.5)/5) are figured _before_ adding the dice from the Push; the Push cannot be... ahem.... 'Haymakered.'
p 199 tells us that weapon damage cannot be increased by Haymaker, though it's unclear (as the only discussion of this was a brief mention in an attack example) to use the Maneuver to get an amount of STR dice sufficient enough to max out the damage of the weapon ("normal" damage class for the weapon x2). Again, it _mentions_ it, but it doesn't really say (or demonstrate) yes or no.
It's worth noting that 4e is when "Kick" disappeared from the character sheet-listed maneuvers; it's possible that "Haymaker" replaces it completely, or that this may have been the intention. Haymakers are mentioned several times throughout the book (and the Champions Sourcebook section, each time in specific relation to Brick-type characters using it on their STR. Not once is it mentioned as being used with anything other than a hand-to-hand attack.
For what it's worth, I'm almost betting that it took a Steve Long book to make that happen (NO! I am _not_ bagging on Steve! I hate that I have to keep defending that fact that I largely disagree with most his rules tweaks by stating that they are _not_ intended personally. I don't even _know_ the man! I never have, and likely never will, met the man. Everything I've heard from people who actually _have_ met him says he's a super-great guy and that he's just an all-around good human being. As I respect most of the people who have told me that, I have absolutely _zero_ doubt that it's true! However, that doesn't mean that I don't have the right disagree with most of the things he has changed. Not all of them, but a considerable chunk. No please-- let's not get into that conversation yet again. Thank you), as he's known for some pretty unusual build ideas. I don't know if there was a 4e sourcebook that was in, as even to this day, I haven't had the stomach to finish 4e Dark Champions, and in spite of Scott's amazing artwork, I have never read any of the Dark Champions supplements in spite of actually owning them. DC just isn't my bag; at least not the 4e "emphasis on dark-gritty-edgelordism" Dark Champions.
Side-stepping to Kick for a moment, just to see if Haymaker was used to replace it all together.
And it was not. Or maybe it was!
"Kick" has been relegated to a buyable Martial Arts maneuver in 4e. Remember that there was a Martial Arts book by Allston that was insanely poplar, and was based on his home-brewed stuff from 3e. The 4e HERO /Champions was nearly concurrent (1989) with Allston's Ninja HERO (1990), and Ninja HERO had a distinct 3e-feel to it (yes; this is entirely subjective, but the book was, even for a HERO Games product, a bit below then-current production values (which were better under Iron Crown than at any time previously). It's not only possible, but highly-likely that this move (creating Kick and a Martial Strike) was based on knowledge of Allston's ideas and possibly even knowledge of his upcoming book. All conjecture at best, but not unreasonable.
At any rate, at no point in the first _four_ editions of this game / System was it possible or even hinted at that Haymaker applied to anything other than a particularly sloppy-yet-powerful application of physical STR.
The first time I had ever even _heard_ of such an idea was the old Red October board. At the time I found the board, it was being hotly debated. I had absolutely no interest in wading into it because I knew damned little about the internet, and because Derek "Rhinobunny" H had pointed me to the board, and I didn't want to do anything to embarrass him and have him regret the invite.
I was floored by the idea. I mean, I _understood_ why people would take it as do-able: "it seems only fair;" "Bricks get to do it;" etc.
My problems were many, but summed up as these three thoughts:
1) Bricks don't have spreadable, bounce-able ranged attacks, either. "Seems fair" has broader applications: the argument then goes more from "seems fair" to "But Johnny gets to do it!" Tell you what: When my brick can spread and / or bounce his fist at multiple opponents across the room using on the STR he bought and paid for, the way you are only using the electro-blast you bought and paid for, then I will let you "Haymaker" that blast.
2) The Brick gains _nothing_ but SFX using Haymaker. He gets a slightly better OCV and a _wrecked_ DCV in exchange for doing something that he could already do via Kick (at least up to 4e, but that's another, weirder discussion.
3) There wasn't even a _hint_ of anything in the rulebook establishing this as _remotely_ legal.
Now we can play a game with this: We can play "but it was in module # / world book # / genre book # / Magazine article #..." all we want.
First, however, we have to set some rules:
All those who have _ever_ laid claim that the various Ultimate books and Handbooks of 5e are _not_ "part of the official main rules" are ineligible to play.
All of those who have _ever_ laid claim that the various blue-backed books from 6e _other_ than HS Vol 1 & Vol 2 are "not really official rules" are ineligible to play.
Why? Because they have staunchly defended the idea that supplemental material-- no matter how holy it has become or how often is referenced as if it were the "official" ruling on a problem are, in fact, not official rules; supporting the idea that an official rule from a supplemental work _is_ an official rule can only make liars of them in one place or the other, and I like these people too much to let them do that to themselves.
That being that case, we have 4 books-- "official rules" for two decades, in which "Haymaker" is an application of Strength, generally considered to be a "special kind of punch" or sometimes a Kick.
Going into 5e.....
Well, I'm going to skip to 5e revised, as my 5e is at a friend's place right now, and I don't have the PDF on this computer. Besides, as fast as re-5 came out, I have always assumed that Steven himself was extremely unhappy with 5 and doing his best to bury it as fast as he possibly could. (Not sure why, because I like 5 more than I do re-5. In fairness, there isn't a _lot_ of difference, but the lower page count is a huge bonus for me ).
There is a hint on p 148 where the text says "...doesn't let him use Ranged Maneuvers, like Rapid Fire or Haymaker, " to which I went Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! Only louder, with shorter, more familiar and contemptuous words. Haymaker is a ranged maneuver?!
There is another hint of p 271:
"Characters may not Haymaker Triggered Powers." To which my first reaction was "well of course he can't, because Triggered Powers are not STR!"
The chart on p 384 shows us that Haymaker is no longer STR x 1.5, but is now "+4 DC." It doesn't say "STR +4 DC." However, I see no reason to assume that a character _can't_ use his STR with "a certain kind of punch," so the first thing I have to note is that Bricks just got massively F*c*ed. No longer can an STR 60 Brick Haymaker his way to an extra 6 DCs; he must instead take an extra 4.
The typical schmoe on the street can _also_ get a +4 DC now, even if he has only a 6 STR. He goes from 1d6 to 5d6, just like that! Insane! The brick is less than 1.5 times as powerful, yet the gimp on the corner is suddenly FIVE TIMES as effective as he was!
Dude, that's just crap, period.
So Haymaker defined: p 189:
"A Haymaker is basically an all-out attack-- the character takes extra time to "wind up" a punch, put extra force into his Energy Blast, aim carefully to hit a vital spot, or otherwise attack the target powerfully."
Here's what's wrong with that:
For the first time _ever_, characters are now being given something. You see, prior to this, Bricks weren't being "given" anything other than a new special effect in exchange for dropping their defense a bit. That STR x 1.5? They could get that _anyway_; they just had to say "kick" instead of "Haymaker."
So what Steve did (and notice that it actually _did_ take a Steve Long book to do this) was to both rob _the signature schtick_ of Bricks throughout cinematic and fiction history by making it something no longer unique to them, but start passing it out like candy to give access to to something that other "types" had _no_ access to before: "Free damage boost." Even capping it at 4DC wasn't much of a balancer, at it gave _even more_ of a bonus to those who's "typical" DC was 7 or less, broke even at 8, and started slowly robbing characters (particularly Bricks, as it was once their "moment in the sun") at 9 or 10 DCs. It was a nuthouse bonus to normals or supers who didn't have "super strength" wanting to just use their normal STR. Oversight, master of PER, with his 10 STR, could "Haymaker" for 6d6! You'd have to have a 30 STR to do that same level without penalty. Quite effective, that.
But Energy Blasters? Hell, they could do it too! Best part? Unlike the Bricks, it wasn't something that they could already pretty much do anyway: it was literally just mana from Heaven. It wasn't like they were otherwise-accessing their Freeze Kick or their Pyro Kick or anything like that. It was straight up freebies for them (yes; CV penalties, but then, Bricks had those too, even for the Kicks that they no longer have _except_ by calling the Haymaker a kick or buying into that ridiculous Martial Arts system that won't die: "I can to twelve dice of damage with a punch, but if I buy a Martial Kick, I can add a die! Or maybe 2! Screw that. I'll call a Haymaker a kick, and add 4 without the points cost.")
At any rate, why don't I allow Haymakering anything that isn't STR?
It's been the rule for a Hell of a lot longer than it hasn't, and I find it considerably more fair, at least until there's a maneuver that gives Bricks all the options that ranged attackers have, so as to balance out the mess that "Haymakering" your sonic stunner has knocked out of kilter.
As for all the justifications for that? "Long, focused aiming," etc? There are already bonuses and maneuvers for those. Only now, thanks to this redefinition of Haymaker, you can effectively double them! Neat! Unless you're a brick, of course. Set and brace and haymaker! "attacking an enemy in a particularly vulnerable spot?" Oh, you mean Hit Location? Well now you can Hit Location and Haymaker! Double-up some more!
There doesn't seem to be _any_ rule against that, so I can say "My haymaker is bracing and taking a long, steady aim-- Oh, and hey: since I'm setting and bracing as my Haymaker, I should get those bonuses as well, right? Seems fair."
Except it doesn't.
That's all I'm going to discuss this, and I've been up later than I intended flipping through books (I was sort of hoping it would help me get to sleep "early" because time change, etc-- ).
Quote or poke all y'all want to, so long as you don't expect a reply, because I'm pretty sure my general dislike of the majority of Steve's rules even back in 4e supplemental stuff has peed in a lot of bowls, so I'd rather not pursue that any further, with anyone, for any reason. Insult it or tear it down all you want; it makes no difference to me: I am not discussing it further, as I don't want to actually get into arguments about things that make _no_ difference, one of us to the other: What you do _really_ care how I play my games, any of you? What does it do to me if you don't play your games the way I do? _nothing_. _none_. I have no interest in losing friends or respect by arguing over something that I have no interest in changing my mind on. Seriously: do you _really_ believe I haven't thought this out? It's only been _how_ many years?
Good night all. :
steph reacted to Hugh Neilson in Trigger and roll attack (6 edition)
All Trigger does is cause the power to activate, so a roll to hit is still needed. 6e v1 p 351 discusses this in detail.
Stepping back, if I could put a Trigger on an attack (a simple zero phase action that I control), that's a +1/4 advantage. If the attack hit automatically, why would anyone buy AoE, Accurate for +1/2? Even if I made the Trigger condition an action that takes no time, for +1/2, I'd get to hit automatically where the AoE Accurate still requires a roll to hit DCV 3, is subject to range mod's and dive for cover, etc. That comparison makes it pretty clear Trigger would be massively underpriced if it also hit automatically. For a player arguing they should hit automatically, I'd point this out, and tell him that, even if the rules said it hits automatically, I'd disallow that as a GM.
For something like the Land Mine example, I likely would not require a To Hit roll - assuming he can hit the hex isn't that big a stretch. But any attack that would require a normal to hit roll still requires a normal to hit roll.
steph reacted to Christopher R Taylor in Bows and Phase action
For Fantasy Hero, its a phase to draw an arrow, nock it, and shoot a bow (you don't fire bows, that's a firearm term).
If you have it "ready" (arrow nocked) its a half phase attack action.
If you have fast draw you can nock or ready the bow with a zero phase action, but its still a half phase action to shoot it.
All of this is at 1/2 DCV. Crossbows can be shot at full DCV.
steph reacted to Christopher in Thief/Rogue Powers
Let us look at some rules. In particular the ones for Surprise. Because getting that is what stealth is about:
Suprised enemies do not get to act on Phase 12 of the first "Turn" 6E2 18
"Characters who are Surprised normally cannot Abort their next Phase; they have, afer all, been taken unawares (see Surprised, 6E2 50). However, the GM may, in his discretion, allow them to Abort." 6E2 22
That means they also do not get to use their CSL. It is still a Free Action to apply the CSL. It is usually trivial to do that as part of a Abort/before your previous attack, but they do not get either of those.
If Dodge or CSL are applied from a previous maneuver aginst another enemy, they are also halfed.
"Attacked from behind (Surprised) out of combat" (the first strike of a combat) means: 1/2 DCV, 1/2 Hit Location Penalties, x2 STUN damge taken. Wich can of course cause the "Stunned" effect too.
"Attacked from behind (Surprised) in combat" 1/2 DCV
Deadly Blow covers all thse things from D&D: Weapon Specialisation, Favoured Enemy, Sneak Attack, Lawfull/Chaotic Weapons and even Paladins Smite Evil attack.
steph reacted to Doc Democracy in CSL and Abort
Just playing Devil's Advocate, your use of an offensive weapon to reduce an opponent's ability to hit you does not necessarily involve blocking but it might require you to have the weapon in hand. If you are chasing me and I have a gun, that I use to threaten or actually shoot at you, I can degrade your offensive capabilities. If I did not have the weapon in my hand then I would not be as good at doing that. #ItsNotAllAboutDodging
steph reacted to Christopher in castle in heroic context
"Hello to all, A question for GM, I'm going to start a campaign this summer and I'm working on it. For the sake of history one of the players will play a considerably powerful noble, a viscount. When players decide to play noblemen, how do you manage their possessions? For the currency and the titles, the players pay in charaters points but for its castle for example, how do you proceed? The player pays with his character points the castle ? Or castle enter in the category of equipment?"
A castle in general would fall under the "Base" rules construct. I mean it is literally a book example, so it will not get clearer then that:
"Vehicles range from a barbarian warrior’s chariot, to the souped-up coupes and sportscars driven by pulp heroes and Dark Champions spies, to the faster-than-light spaceship of an intergalactic smuggler. Similarly, Bases can range from a medieval castle, to the sprawling underground headquarters of a supervillain, to Space Station Gamma-9"
However, that asumes it will actually be usefull during adventuring. If he is a wandering Adventurer and the castle is not wandering as well, it would usually be out of reach. Unless there is some instant access via Teleportation or what no - the effective reachability most of the time maters here - it is not usefull during adventuring. And if it is not usefull during adventure time, it might simply fall under the "What not to spend points on" rule.
As usual it can still be brought up by the player once or twice per campaign. And as the GM, you are allowed to make it the center of any numbers of adventures. But at large it might be so little worth for the player, it is not worth accounting for it.
steph reacted to IndianaJoe3 in castle in heroic context
Exactly. If it's just a base of operations between adventures, it doesn't matter that it's a mighty fortress with a large garrison. When the character is out adventuring, he doesn't have access to those resources and shouldn't need to pay points for them. If the character wants to bring a few bodyguards along, he only pays for those guards, not the whole garrison.
Of course, this assumes a conventional heroic fantasy campaign. If you are playing more of a military wargame, the character will be using those resources and you'll need to build it with the base and follower rules.
steph reacted to Gnome BODY (important!) in CSL and Abort
The only stipulations mentioned on using a CSL to increase DCV are the "at least 3 points" and "same types" stipulations. Rules-as-written, the CSL would apply.
I can't say I see the logic behind making a skilled warrior become less competent at dodging just because he's not holding a metal stick. Blocking of course, but blocking already keys off OCV.
steph reacted to assault in castle in heroic context
Pretty much "what archer said".
For me, the question of paying points or not boils down to "what function will the castle play in the game?"
If paying the points for it does little or nothing but act as a tax on the character, effectively making him or her weaker than the other characters, then it should be a zero point thing. If it makes the character more powerful, then they should pay points for it. If it's essentially a plot hook and convenience for the GM, no points should be charged.
steph reacted to archer in castle in heroic context
My personal opinion only.
To be nobility of some sort, you would need to purchase Member of the Nobility at whatever level is appropriate for your title and/or family connections.
To be a member of nobility who has access to wealth, you would also need to purchase the wealth perk. Many times in the past, being a member of the nobility and "being wealthy" did not necessarily go together. They might have been fantastically wealthy compared to a peasant but other than an ancestral home, some weapons and armor handed down through the ages or won on the battlefield, and some land which they couldn't sell, many of them weren't wealthy in terms of being able to throw money around. You can have quite poor noblemen who have trouble putting food on the table for their household (much less purchasing armor for their sons who are coming of age) or you could have quite wealthy noblemen. And many times both wealthy and poor nobility existed within the same kingdom.
So I agree with you up to this point.
As for a castle, if the character is going to both own it and the castle is going to function as a base, the player(s) needs to purchase it as a base (then use the base's points to purchase the various people and lands which make a castle a functional living place).
Now if some elderly relative is still alive, still actively owns the castle, and remains the person with the highest title within the family line, the castle and the relative would function as plot hooks to get the PC's involved in various adventures rather than a PC's base.
But once the PC becomes the guy in charge and the castle is his, it's his responsibility to come up with the points to pay for it. And the PC being responsible to pay character points includes knocking off his elderly relative or allowing someone else to kill the elderly relative so the PC can inherit the place. (I would attempt to make this clear to the PC's during character-building. Inheriting a title and lands is both an advantage and to some extent a drawback because the PC could very well be on the hook for laying out more character points in the future than he might want to be putting into having a title and all the perks that go with it.)
Once a PC commits to being a viscount and having lands and a castle, I would think it would be much cheaper to buy the castle/land as a base then use the base's points (aka "whatever character points the player wants to commit to it" times five) to buy servants, fealty-sworn knights and various men-at-arms as followers than it would be to for the PC to buy all of those followers directly with his own character points.
A GM note on castle servants:
Servants in a castle were many times considered to be part of the household which gave those servants many rights and privileges which someone who worked only for wages didn't have.
1) People who were of the household would "eat from the lord's table". Not literally but the lord made sure they were fed, even during the lean times or in famine.
2) They had the right to take shelter in the castle during times of distress even if their actual living quarters weren't inside the castle.
3) The lord might take special note of the sons or daughters and arrange marriages, apprenticeships, becoming a squire (rarely), etc. which might give the kid an advantage in life which she might not otherwise have.
4) Visitors would know that the lord's household was under his protection and not take liberties as they might with mere hirelings.
5) Members of the household who became disabled or elderly would be assigned lighter duties rather than be fired. Those who became too elderly to be of any use at all were still allowed to eat from the lord's table, which was a real benefit in an era with no governmental social services.
6) In a fantasy setting, a lord might arrange for a priest to heal people of the household who became sick or injured.
That's not an exhaustive list but you get the idea. (That's a recounting of an ideal situation and the reality would vary according to the personality of the lord. But some lord who stayed too far from that would gain a negative reputation among both nobility and commoners.)
Anyway, the point is that each servant will know whether the lord considers him or her (and their family) to be part of the household or whether they're just working for wages. Someone who is part of the household will show a certain amount of loyalty to the lord because the lord has shown loyalty to her. Someone who is working for wages in an occupation which would normally be filled by someone who is part of the lord's household will be wondering what's going on in the lord's head...they'll be wondering why the lord has no loyalty to them.
Now that might not be the lord's mindset at all, he might just be a clueless ( no KS: Responsibilities of Being a Member of the Nobility, so to speak). But those people who would rightly consider themselves to be nothing more than (disgruntled) hirelings would be more open to bribery, being spies for some other noble, to steal items from the castle, embezzle, etc. than someone who knows she's part of the household.
So if the PC tries to cheap out (ironically, "cheaping out" by using his wealth perk to pay wages) and not purchase the people who work inside the castle as being followers as well (or doesn't at least explicitly clarify the status of each of the people who work in the castle to them), feel free to use that against him.