eepjr24

Just sharing some information that others might like to have. I have been getting into cartography more lately and as a result have come across some resources that can be used for different genre's of HERO in VTT platforms. Note that these are useful in many different genres. If you need some maps for upcoming games, here are some places to look:

Cartographers Guild Battle Maps section: (also check the Finished Maps section)

https://www.cartographersguild.com/forumdisplay.php?f=57

I like some of these, specifically:

https://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=48412&p=428065#post428065

https://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=48398&p=428000#post428000

https://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=48323&page=2&p=427855#post427855

Deviant Arts: (warning: quite a bit of NSFW content here if you are not careful)

https://www.deviantart.com

and specific ones:

https://www.deviantart.com/jcarlhenderson/favourites/57508884/rpg-encounter-maps

https://www.deviantart.com/jcarlhenderson/favourites/57509128/fantasy-cartography

https://www.deviantart.com/sapiento/art/Encounter-Map-Fallen-Statues-245055258

https://www.deviantart.com/torstan/art/The-Low-River-Map-Pack-172684106

Venatus Maps: (has paid and free content)

The free encounter maps below also have all the pieces to build multiple maps for free. And even the paid stuff is good quality and low cost.

https://www.venatusmaps.com/product-page/example-maps

2-Minute Tabletop: (has free and paid content, similar to Venatus in cost)

https://2minutetabletop.com/product-category/free/

DM's Guild: (has free, pay what you want and paid content, link below is free/pwyw)

https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?keywords=encounter+++free&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=

Drivethru RPG (lots of cross here with DM Guild, may be a mirror or run by same people)

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?keywords=free+encounter&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=

Drop any that you like below and enjoy the maps.

- E

On 12/15/2020 at 9:22 PM, Ockham's Spoon said:

 

For a superheroic campaign you are probably right.  But what I find Piercing useful for are Fantasy settings where I can put it on a magic sword to make it that little bit better than a regular sword without overpowering it.  I have also used it in sci-fi settings to represent high tech weaponry with laser-honed diamond edges or something.  But in those cases it is equipment and the character didn't pay points for it, so the cost is somewhat irrelevant.

I agree with Ockham here. For lower powered campaigns where weapons don't always cost points (especially those in Street Level Hero, Spy v Spy, MHI, Fantasy Hero, etc.)  it is a nice option to add flavor and uniqueness to some weapons. The point cost will often be reflected in a higher economic cost.

I probably would not use the rule in games where players actually build powers for points unless I evaluated some specific defenses against it. Utility attack multipowers can use this type of adder very effectively sometimes by targeting niches like Flash or Power Defense where the comparable defenses are generally low. This might not be as big a problem now as I have not played a super hero level game with all the bells and whistles (DN, DR, etc.) in 6e (mostly run lower powered non-supers games nowadays).

- E

Hello again, denizens of the Fantasy Hero forums. Like many others I am sure, I have gotten quite restless during the events related to COVID and have undertaken a number of projects to assuage my boredom. This sent me down an odd path that eventually led to me finding a Creative Commons adventure that was written in Spanish and I decided to give a shot at translating it. I am not a Spanish speaker (aside from polite phrases and the ability to order basic beer and food) so I used a variety of online translations along with context from within the adventure itself to accomplish this. 

Anyway, I wanted to share the result with you all. It is somewhat tongue in cheek but could easily prove to be a challenge for even intermediate adventurers depending on how the monsters are written up or if the rolls go sideways. I still have a final editing pass to do, so if you find phrasing errors or the like, please let me know. I will be including some blank maps and maybe a map with hexes in a zip file with the PDF when I am done.

The Well of Brunnenburg.pdf

Hi, fellow Herophiles! I am not looking to design and publish something solo at this time, but in the spirit of helping out a community that I quite enjoy I'd like to offer assistance if someone has need of my skills. 

I can read for comprehension, grammar and spelling (things a spell checker misses like the versus they, etc.).

I can check math calculations for powers, etc.

I can create basic encounter maps with hexes at appropriate size for VTT or printing. I can provide an example or two if needed. I am not a professional, just a hobbyist with GIMP.

I can sounding board ideas, concepts, contribute power ideas, for plot, characters, organizations, and so forth. 

I am most comfortable in 6th Edition at the moment since that is what I GM right now, but I played and GM'd basically all of them.

I have the next two weeks off from work so that is a good window of opportunity. After that my time is more sporadic, but I will still have some spare time. You can contact me on here or email me at eepjr24  at gmail D0T com.

- Ernie

On 12/5/2020 at 3:40 PM, MrKinister said:

Hey,

 

That's a fantastic map. Don't sell yourself short. "Arting" (much like "adulting") is a matter of practice. It looks like a great map, and it has all the elements you'd want in an image that will give you an idea of where you are and what you are looking at. Besides, don't make the (very common) mistake of thinking you have to produce art and design like people who've been doing it for decades. That's just crazy. If you just started, this is pretty awesome.

 

Keep up the good work. 😃

Thanks! I like variety, so I actually have moved on to creating some design elements and a side project of translating a generic adventure (from Spanish) under CC4.

Check it out, feedback is welcome, it is still a work in progress. If you want to check actual language and speak Spanish, let me know and I'll get you a link.

All I would ask is you not upload it anywhere right now, I don't want copies without the final formatting, spell check, etc. performed.

- E

The Well of Brunnenburg.pdf

First, I agree with Duke on this much: It's your game, it will work however you want.

That said, I think about it a bit differently. DEF is the amount of force prevented from causing meaningful distortion in the material. Body is how much meaningful distortion the material can take and still serve it's original purpose.

So for me, Bronze would have a lower DEF. You can certainly up the BODY to help compensate for that (probably at the expense of additional weight and material cost). As far as the effect in game terms, I would likely give 1 less DEF to Bronze armor in addition to having it weigh more (about 10%) for the same amount of BODY. The effect would be nothing if you were using Bronze against Bronze but would tell in a fight of Steel against Bronze. Generally it would end in the Bronze armor needing extensive repairs if the wearer survived. 

[Technical bits probably no one cares about: Bronze is a 3 on the Moh's scale of hardness, Steel is a 4. A 1 foot cube of Bronze weighs about 54 more pounds (roughly 10 percent more) than the same size cube of Steel (depending on the exact alloys of bronze and steel used). The tensile yield of Bronze (tinned or early type) would have been in the 15-20,000 PSI range, early hardened steels would have been about 50,000 PSI (maybe a little less, hard to find exact stats on that).]

Obviously, YMMV, this is just the way I would think about it.

- E

I know you probably hear this everywhere, but this election is likely to be the largest in American history. Please, if you have not already done so, make some time tomorrow and cast your vote. I am sure some of you will vote differently than me and that's to be expected, we are a diverse nation with many different peoples and opinions. But please do make your voice heard in the least controversial way possible: Cast your ballot.

- E

1 minute ago, MordeanGrey said:

Here are some hex grids I created in Illustrator. Feel free to use them for creating hex maps by placing them over the top of other files. I've included transparent files with both white and black lines.

 

These are originally 48x48 inches so the resolution should be good for about any project. There are PDFs and PNGs.

If you are using GIMP it's pretty easy to add square or hex grids as a layer. Then you can control the color, size, opacity and other settings on the fly. 

- E

1 hour ago, archer said:

I just steal existing RPG maps off the internet and roughly overlay hexes.

 

I have no detectable art ability.

 

I'm always a bit envious of people who can do artistic things. But then I stand and watch how much time and effort it takes them to make their incredible creations...and talk myself out of trying to learn any of it.  

I am not "traditionally" artistic. I enjoy artistic pursuits, but they normally are far, far away from the 2d drawing, painting, sketching kind of thing. I love 3d arts (wood working, jewelry making, some sculpting) but my drawing ability is mostly on the stick figure level. Part of what I liked about the tutorial that helped me create this is that it started with a rough sketch that even I was capable of managing. And then everything just builds up slowly from there. Probably this is how some (or maybe most) folks draw, but it makes a lot more sense to me for maps than wood work or sculpting techniques which are more "keep taking things away until you have what you want left".

Anyway, back on topic, I am trying a medium sized town / city map now, so lots more detailed objects to create but the process has been very similar. I'll post it when I get done.

- E

4 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Critique wise, you made no mistakes. Good color choices, and very gameable. How many pixels across is it? 
 

As for their use, I find maps and minis necessary for any game that has a large tactical element. 

3500 pixels square. Equates to 50x50 70 pixel hexes which is what Roll 20 uses. I can pull the hexes out pretty easily if someone wants to scale it differently.

Thank you. I still feel like I have a ton to learn, but good to know it's usable.

- E

So I have downloaded GIMP and started playing around with some battlemaps for virtual tabletop use. I have not done any design like this in a long time. I don't claim to be a great artist, but I like to make things nice enough to allow easy suspension of disbelief for the players. As such, I would like to know if other do their own battle maps, make do without any, use those that others have made or some other solution? If you make your own, what do you use?

Here is my first attempt, it's a cavern setting that will probably end up being a 2 session thing because of the number of encounters unless the players are very clever or very sneaky. It's set right now for hexes at 5 feet, I'll probably set them for 2m for the conversion, made this to be more generally usable in 5e settings. Feedback welcome, good, bad or indifferent.

Fungus_Caverns

- E

Not inexpensive, but if you are looking for custom characters to be printed, you might reach out to HeroForge (http://heroforge.com). They can get close today, but I think if they saw a market they could easily increase their offerings to be more compatible with the Superhero genre.

Lots of good feedback here and different view points. I think the problems pointed out can be summarized as:

1. Fairness - "master" casters are unfairly penalized

2. Cost - inexpensive effect for outcome

3. Versatility - potential to shut down casters easily

Obviously, each person is free to implement this type of effect as they wish (or forbid it altogether), but based on the feedback I think I am going to change the following to help balance the effect:

To help with fairness, I am going to implement a "Spell" limitation (Thanks @Chris Goodwin) that includes the fact that spells use can be restricted by effects like this one, along with some other common spell effects (all spells must draw END from a reserve, School limitation restrictions, END Reserves require rest to recover, LTE effects for Spell use, etc.).

For versatility, I will also allow 2 point DPSL's that counteract the effect at 2 points per -1 offset (per suggestions for an alternate defense mechanism in the Rules Forum by @Steve Long). This follows the general rule of defense being cheaper than the attack and would be a trivial cost for a master caster. This would be in addition to being able to dispel, drain and suppress the field, leave the area, etc. I will also be limiting the size and duration of the effect and not allow single target versions.

To adjust the cost I will be adjusting the pricing for this type of power as follows:

  > A -1 to CHAR roll and all skill rolls will cost 4 as published. This will work against anyone who HAS a magic skill roll.

  > A -1 to CHAR roll and new skill roll will cost 5. This is required to force a skill roll that someone has not purchased. It gives them a base roll of 9+(CHAR/5) for

     purposes of that roll only. This roll will NOT be modified by active points of the spell being cast. If this does not work out in game I will consider switching this

     to just a straight 14- and -1 per 5 point level beyond that.

Also thanks to @Hugh Neilson for ideas and commentary.

- E

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Nothing here changes anything.  You're overcomplicating this in your head by bringing in details that don't matter.  Spell research is not a game mechanic, it's a campaign mechanic.  If someone's got an exceptionally high Spellcraft skill, fine;  he'd do really well here.  If his roll is better than the implied skill roll we're suggesting, use it.  Who cares why he's got a 20-?  All that matters is, that's what he's got...unless you're splitting the notions of casting and crafting/understanding into 2 different skills.

<snip>

If none of this matters to you, feel free not to answer in regards to it. I don't particularly need the snark, especially since I was answering something Hugh asked about as an aside. Unless perhaps providing the snark makes you feel superior in some fashion, in which case you will likely continue anyway.

- E

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

My comments are taken from the assumption that the main, if not sole, use of Magic Skill in the specific game is to govern RSR on spells (assumed, but with no comments from eepjr indicating the wizard with no RSR limitations has a magic skill, I think a fair assumption), and that some spellcasters have RSR and others do not (which eepjr has stated).

It's not the sole use, it can also be used for Spell Research. Some players will be content to learn spells from others, buy them from a shop or the like. And some who research may be content to spend a long time or more money so that they don't need to raise the skill beyond the base value, which is why I have specified that a high skill roll is not by itself an indicator of casting prowess. Some researchers who seldom cast a spell at all will have a high Magic roll. Other examples of prowess (depending on the school) are lower endurance cost (some schools have 4x or 5x endurance on "learner" spells), quicker casting times, having more spells available or casting "quiet" versions of their spells that are not easily detectable.

There certainly can be casters with no magic skill, but I don't know how common it will be among players yet, as the campaign is still in development. Last campaign half the party were casters of some kind, no idea what it will be this time.

- E

7 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

eepjr, you referred to not being any harder to access a tiny bit of magic (low AP) than a lot of magic (huge AP), but that is not the case for a wizard who already has RSR - the more AP he wants to access, the less likely he will be able to. 

It makes it more difficult for the person with or without an existing RSR. I don't see how spending 30+ points on an power that does not affect someone with one interpretation of skill versus another.

- E 

50 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Change Environment is a Constant power.

 

Once you attack it stays until the user stops paying END or the target leaves the range or blocks it somehow. So buy it with Costs END only to activate, spend a phase attacking and then switch to your other attacks(assuming CE is not in a Multipower).

 

Incorrect. 6E, 174 (Emphasis mine)

Quote

Change Environment costs END. Once the character stops paying END to maintain the Change Environment, the Power stops functioning, though its effects may linger for some
time thereafter.

6E, 177

Quote

Long-Lasting: The effects of a Change Environment with this Adder last for a period of time after the character stops paying END to maintain the Change Environment, though the exact length they remain depends on the power’s special effects and the environmental conditions (ice sheets do not last long in the desert, for example, but may remain forever in arctic areas).

- E

28 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

As a GM, I dislike this use of Change Environment. While it is perfectly rules legal and within the spirit and history of the genre, it is too effective. For a 3 point power with a non-standard defense, i can force upon a target a Limitation on their power or worsen an existing one. For 15 points, I can make the target have a -4 roll(-5 if they already had RSR) which will really skew their chance of success at just activating the power.

 

I see this as more of a Major/Severe Transform or a powerful Drain/Suppress which would certainly come in at a much higher point total. Now points don't matter to a GM as far as budget goes, but they should be used to gauge how powerful and effect may be relative to campaign limits.

I think you are inflating either the ease or the points with which you can apply this. I would certainly allow you to buy CE at it's minimum for the setting. But I don't see a huge impact with spending an attack action with the sole purpose of causing a minor limitation for a single phase. I would point out that I would not allow you to force a skill roll for a skill you don't have at the 3 point level. 4 points is still low, of course. For the 20 point power you could again create problems for a phase, but you are using your phase to do it. To get any real mileage out of this you need to add long lasting at some level. And you do still have to hit or add an area of effect to it. So you are probably looking in the 30 point range to make this somewhat effective at keeping someone from casting for long enough to seriously hamper them. 

I don't think you could achieve this affect at all with Drain or Suppress. If you went with a transform, it would be a Minor Transform (Add a -1/2 Limitation to the Target's Power). Probably we would need 6d6 with Standard Effect to handle the base case of 10 Body. So base cost of 30 AP. Then you have changed that person for 5 months. A little bit more than I was looking for.  So we add Time Limit: 1 minute for -2. Oh, and since I am adding it as an actual limitation to the power, I need to subtract -1 per 10 AP, from my roll. So I am getting more effect for sure and likely coming out cheaper, but with a more complicated mechanism, IMO. It's not significantly more expensive to my mind in AP and probably cheaper in RP.

As always though, each of us can do what we like as GM. 😃

- E

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I voted sometimes, and am elaborating as requested.  

 

My answer:  It depends.  

<snip>

 

If an attack doesn't hit the hands or arms (for Gestures) or the mouth, throat, or head (for Incantations) then it probably won't disrupt the Gestures or Incantations.  Attackers can make called shots against those locations.  If you're looking for a suggestion, I'd borrow from Impairing and Disabling Wounds for guidance.  6e2 p. 61 suggests that an Impairing or Disabling wound to the hand can cause the target to drop something they're holding, and gives guidance on how to decide.  You could also look at 6e2 p. 108 under Wounding for more guidance.  6e2 p. 111 has the rules for Impairing and Disabling.  You might also allow a Stun damage comparison similar to Body damage comparison for purposes of Impairing and Disabling; I'd suggest that if the STUN done, after defenses but before or after the STUNx for the Hit Location, is equal to or greater than half the character's CON, they might need to make a roll to keep Gesturing or Incanting.  

There was a time when I would have hewed much closer to this, but in general my players have resisted Hit Locations and the complexity that goes along with it. I will say, it speeds up combat to not have to worry about it, especially when the creature is non-humanoid and has custom locations. So with that said, we don't play disabling or impairing generally either, although exceptionally I will have a player injured in this manner from a particularly egregious hit.

I like the half CON idea, although I am leaning toward BODY automatically interrupting. I may allow something along the lines of Resistance (from the optional wounding rules). Maybe For every point of resistance you have, up to half your body minus 1, you can still make an EGO (CON?) roll to power through. In my mind, if you take half your BODY in one shot I don't care what kind of control you have you are going to flinch and cry out (assuming the you are not just outright stunned).

Thanks for the input.

Just now, Ninja-Bear said:

@eepjr24 I skipped all the responses past mine so this might have been covered. If you force a RSR on a magic user that didn’t buy a RSR then maybe treat it as Magic Skill Roll at -1 per 20 ACT points.  Or something similar where they get the best chance to make it.

If I force it, I am not going to penalize them for AP at all in this case. It is sufficient to require the roll, in my mind. 

3 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

eepjr24, do you have all spells requiring a Spell Limitation?  Something could be built into that.  As one of the conditions of the Spell Limitation, even spells that are bought to not RSR can still in some cases require a Magic Skill Roll to cast, or -- and I believe this is suggested in the description of CE, if not in at least one of the rules questions I linked above -- a Characteristic Roll.  In much the same way as a CE: Icy Floor can require characters to make a DEX Roll or an Acrobatics Roll, the magic-disruptive CE can require an appropriate Characteristic Roll or a Magic Skill Roll.  

 

I would also expect that even casters who have bought off the RSR Limitation on some or all of their spells might still have Power Skill: Magic, because it can still be used to power stunt their spells, but also because at some point in their early days they were a lowly journeyman caster, all of whose spells were RSR at -1 per 10 Active Points.  

All spells do not currently require a Spell Limitation, but that is certainly worth thinking about for cases like this. Some schools always have RAR.

To "buy off" RAR, you would need to research and create a new spell without it, which is certainly an option and would get bonuses because it is simply the same spell with differing limitations. But as you say I doubt they would bother with all their spells.

Some things to think about and read, for sure. Thanks for the links!

- E

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

If you want to impose a penalty, then how about...

 

If my spellcasting does not require a skill roll, then it's at 18- *regardless* of active points...or, if you prefer, my skill rating is such that my net skill roll is 18- even when using my largest active point cost spell.  So if that's, say, 75 points, my skill roll is 25-.

 

That becomes a common basis for a CE imposing skill roll penalties, and lets me cast a 40 point spell despite fairly heavy interference that might shut down a 70 point spell.  The apprentice is gonna be SOL.

As I mentioned above, no AP penalties will be applied to the roll, it's not about how much power the spell throws, it's about getting connected to the power source at all. For an analogy, if the spell is Wattage, I am not attempting to increase the Resistance on the circuit, I am trying to connect to the electricity at all.

- E

4 minutes ago, mallet said:

I say yes, but then I only usually GM fantasy games. 
 

if successful attacks don’t inhibit gestures and incantations then they are not much of a limitation as the only thing that would stop them would be restraining the caster. And since restraining a characters arms would also stop weapon or hand to hand attacks and those don’t (Usually) get limitations for being restrainable it wouldn’t be balanced if that was the only thing that stopped casters (with gestures and Incantations limitation).

I agree. I am trying to figure out if there should be some nuance and if so, what people rule people apply. For example, if you take BODY, it automatically interrupts, but if you take STUN, you get a CON roll at -1 per N STUN taken. Or you can buy a skill to mitigate it somehow. Etc. Thank you for weighing in. 

1 minute ago, Greywind said:

They can. That is part of why they are limitations.

When you say "they can", what do you mean? Is it not all or nothing for your campaign? If it is not all or nothing, what determines if it interrupts?

Do attacks interrupt gestures and incantations in your setting?

3 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The catch being that I am assuming the lack of RSR has the special effect of being that much better at casting spells.  I'm not sure what the rationale for certain spellcasters, or certain spells, requiring no skill roll is in your game.

Well.... I would not say that lack of RSR means you are that much better at casting. The spells themselves are built with RSR, as a requirement for being in that school. There CAN also be apprentice versions of spells that have an RSR in schools that do not explicitly require an RSR for all spells.

So far there are 3 schools that require an RSR, one from each school group (Chaos, Earth and Insect). These schools magics are more difficult to connect to because of their foreign nature in the setting. Beyond that, spells with an RSR are to primarily indicate 2 things - the caster is less experienced or has some other difficulty establishing a connection to the source.

- E

1 minute ago, Hugh Neilson said:

As a player, I can view this another way.  My magic does not have RSR, because I am Just That Good at spellcasting.  The other spellcaster is only an apprentice - he has a 14- magic skill roll, so he can succeed with his 30 AP and 40 AP spells about half the time.

 

But when you toss this "make magic more difficult" field onto us, my much greater spellcasting ability goes away, and the apprentice is as good as me, or even better, at casting his spells than I am - because my magic was LESS limited.

 

As a player this does not feel overly fair, nor does it seem internally consistent that making magic a bit tougher to manipulate would have a much more significant impact on a Master than an Apprentice.  This feels like a construct that would work much better in a game where all magic (or all spellcasting, with this effect having no impact on someone with an innate magical power rather than a skill-requiring spellcasting ability) requires a skill roll than where some spellcasters have an innate and infallible ability to cast spells, and others do not.  While that could be resolved by making the effect a penalty on magic skill rolls and having no impact if there is no need to make such a roll, that is clearly not the desired effect.

This is the kind of feedback I was looking for. 😃

Do you have any suggestions for fixing this? I could easily home brew something, but my thought was that the Master above would also still have his primary stat bought higher since he got to mastery by working up the ranks? And his roll would specifically NOT have an AP penalties, which seemed to go toward balancing it out? Since the magic skill is 

And the Apprentice would have an additional -1 to his roll because of how RSR works. If the CE was bought to the -2 level, the Master would then suffer a -1 to his roll the way I was planning on handling it, which goes a bit more towards balance again.

Thoughts on making it better for those with decades of magic experience:

Make the Magic skill roll more useful for other things, increasing the likelihood that most mages would have it. Perhaps using it instead of Research for new spells? Or cap Research and use the magic skill roll as complementary?

Use the active or real points of the total spells know as a defense against this? Either "ineffective against those with X RP or more of spells" or "every X AP of spells provides a +1 to roll"?

Others?

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Moving aside from that issue, could someone learn to reduce the effectiveness of only some types of magic, so that this field impacts INT and EGO-based magic, but not PRE-based magic? 

Yes. Without getting too deep into the spell system, there are three school "groups" of 4 schools each. One group uses EGO, one uses INT and one uses PRE. For reference it looks something like this right now:

(Air, Earth, Fire, Water) - EGO

(Animal, Insect, Man, Plant) - INT

(Chaos, Death, Life, Order) - PRE

So you could not affect the school in direct opposition to yourself without affecting those who use your school as well. The theory here is that you are making the connection to the source of magic more difficult to make. It would not affect the strength of spells, just whether you could manage the connection to cast at all.

- E