Chris Goodwin

LOL. I'd love to see one too! Heromaker was the official one for 4th. I'm not sure how easy it is to find a legal copy. Probably in the "difficult to impossible" category. There was another one called Hero Creator, which was licensed and was based on a multi-system program called Meta Creator. I think Meta Creator can still be had from its publisher, and it might be possible to find and use the 4th edition plugin for it. 🤜 🤛 ⚔️

Here's where it helps to know what edition. Independent is gone in 6th edition (and I supported removing it); the permanent expenditure of points then becomes a GM's campaign option in Fantasy Hero, and one which I tend to shy away from. If it is in effect: you'll probably see few to no PCs start with points spent on magic items (as opposed to their spell Foci) nor make them in play, and in fact with Independent, characters explicitly don't pay points for items they find in play. But Independent, or permanent expenditure of Character Points regardless of whether there's a Limitation for it or not, breaks the relationship between character point totals and power level, and changes them from a meta resource to something with some weird, inconsistent, nebulous, in-game, almost-currency sort of thing. And, aside from the "character loses points permanently" aspect, it's almost presented as being more advantageous than limiting; if it doesn't limit the character it shouldn't be worth points, yet if it does come into play, someone gets really screwed. (An aside to my good friend @Duke Bushido: I don't see a permanent expenditure of 2 points in a 250 point Champions game as breaking things too much, but 10-20 points in a 150 point Fantasy Hero game can be a lot more painful.) I just wouldn't use it. Not that I ever ran a Fantasy Hero game in the 5th edition era, but I had as one of my standard house rules in case I ever did, "Independent is not permitted."

The original Hero Games guys played a lot of TFT when they were designing Champions. There's a definite family resemblance there.

I'm thinking about the idea of publishing "editionless" stats. Characters, at least, with point costs hidden, except for the total at the end. I'm on my phone at the moment but I'll try to work up some examples later.

I'd say -1/2 at least. Maybe more if Ego scores tend to be higher. I'd say so, unless you can convince your GM to let you summon a hex of fire, shadow, etc. I might allow it myself in fact, just to make it easier to build. Summon is an "instant" Power in that it works and has its effect instantly, but the summoned being stays around until it's dismissed, destroyed, leaves under its own power, etc. Edit: Ah, I missed the point of this part. There's a "Costs END to maintain" Limitation, either -1/4 or -1/2, I don't remember.

Normally in Hero, Images (light/sound) can't do damage while Mental Illusions (all in the mind, but usually against one target) can. However, you could write up an "illusionary monster" and then make the spell Summon Illusionary Monster. You can add Variable Effect to summon other kinds of creatures. To fill a hex with fire, use a Blast or Killing Attack with Area of Effect and Constant or Continuous and either Uncontrolled (to feed END into it at the start and have it run off of that) or Time Limit (to have it expire on its own).

Actually it occurs to me that Transforming a Focus is probably more properly a Transform against its owner. If it's an ordinary object with its own BODY score, just use that.

1. A focus is probably considered to have a number of BODY for Transformation purposes equal to the Active Points of the highest point power divided by 5, plus one for each additional power in it. Pretty much the way a breakable Focus's effective PD/ED score is determined. We really need a better way, by the way. 2. Probably depends on common sense, dramatic sense, special effects. I don't think an Unbreakable Focus is necessarily un-Transformable, but it depends. The average wizard wouldn't be able to Transform Mjolnir, but the Beyonder probably would.

Perfectly.

Then either I've been missing your points, or the points I'm making are not the ones you're responding to. Should characters be allowed to start the game with magic items? I can easily think of concepts that would allow that. For that matter, I can easily think of concepts that would allow characters to start with other special abilities. Half-giant wants to start with 30 STR? Dragonborn wants to start with a breath weapon? Fighter wants to start with an heirloom magic sword? Enchanter wants to start with a flying carpet or a ring of protection from arrows? I'm not sure I could say yes to some of those and no to the others. And they should all pay points to start the game with those things, out of fairness if nothing else. Shouldn't they? If player characters don't pay points for magic items they find in play, then out of fairness, the characters who paid points to start the game should get those points back. Shouldn't they? (If you're assuming those are all Independent, you're not exactly making that clear; I'm assuming they're not, for the record, and I have been and am still arguing from that assumption.) If characters find magic items in play, and don't have to "pay for" them in the sense that they don't have to allocate XP to them... I can accept that, but then, either: The characters who started the game with magic items should get their points back, or The ones who didn't pay points for them get to keep those items entirely and only at the GM's option. Because Bob, a 200 point character who gains a 100 point item is effectively a 300 point character. And Alice, a 200 point character who starts play with a 100 point item, for which she's spent the points, is effectively, and actually, a 200 point character. Either Bob should spend 100 points, or Alice should get 100 points back, or Bob's item is not his in the same way that Alice's is hers. This is the entirety of the point that I'm trying to make, and it seems to me that you're disagreeing with some part of this, but I can't figure out what. If you don't agree with player characters starting the game with magic items, that's fair. In which case it doesn't matter much whether or not characters pay points for the items they find in play -- but Bob, a 200 point character who finds a 100 point magic sword, is a 300 point character whether he "spends" the 100 points or not. And magic items are still Foci, and they can be taken away by the GM.. and Bob doesn't get to complain if he didn't pay points for the magic sword and then loses it. I'm trying to spell my points out as clearly as I can. If you disagree with one or more of them then we can agree to disagree... but if you are disagreeing with one or more of them, I can't figure out which ones, nor what your position on them is. And if I haven't been clear enough with any of my points, I apologize. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.

As I said earlier, I see it as being not much different from a superheroic campaign. The reason Batman doesn't carry a Thompson submachine gun around with him is that he didn't pay the points for one. If he pays the points, he can carry one; if he doesn't, then while he might pick up a criminal's dropped gun to use until the end of the scene, possibly the end of the session, it's not a regular part of his character. That's how I tend to see magic items. And I honestly don't see how it could be a flaw. If a PC doesn't pay points for a magic item, then the player can't dictate whether or not they keep it -- on this I will not budge. To be honest, even if they do pay the points for it, if the GM takes away the item, the character should get the points back. (Or: if a 200 point fighter finds a 100 point magic sword, he's effectively a 300 point character, whether or not he "spends" XP by marking them on his character sheet. If he then loses the sword, he's back to being effectively a 200 point character. If he's paid 30 XP so far on the installment plan, then if he loses the sword he gets those 30 XP back. If a 300 point fighter starts with 100 of his points spent on a magic sword, and he loses the sword, then he is effectively a 200 point fighter with 100 points left to spend.) The most fair way I can think of to have a character start with a magic item is for them to pay the points for it. (This is a game where players should get to play the characters they want to play, right? If someone has an heirloom magic sword passed down from their parents and grandparents and so on... or if a player character is an enchanter, and they want to start with magic items during play... shouldn't they have them?) And if no one has to pay points for magic items found after the campaign starts, then fairness would dictate that the character who paid points to start with one should get them back if others receive magic items without having to pay the points. It has to be both or neither, and on this I will also not budge. If a 200 point character finds a 100 point magic item, and keeps it, then they're effectively a 300 point character, whether or not the player chooses to allocate the points on the character sheet, or whether or not the GM requires them to. The most fair way I still see it is, all across the board, the standard HERO System mantra of "you pay for what you get, you get what you pay for", and to have characters who want magic items to pay points for them. But, per the discussion in the entire thread, I can readily see how that might not always be workable or desirable.

This is definitely something the GM will have to consider. If characters can pay points to start with magic items, but don't have to pay points to keep ones that are found, I would suggest that fairness would dictate that those who paid points to start with them should get those points back. Alice, a 200 point archer who has spent 20 of her starting points on the Bow of Projectiles, and Bob, a 200 point fighter who has found the 20-point Axe of Spikiness, should both be considered, effectively, 220 point characters. I would suggest that Alice gets to "withdraw" the points she's paid for the bow, at the same rate as she receives XP. In other words, if she receives 3 XP for the session, then she should get 3 of her spent points back from the bow, at the same time. Those wouldn't be considered XP; they would be a cost reduction applied to the bow's cost, which would reduce her total points. Assuming the point in the campaign at which both have received a total of 20 XP, that would make Bob a 200 point character with a 20 point axe and 20 XP, and Alice a 180 total point character, with a max of 200 points (leaving her 20 points unspent) and 20 XP. If she later spends her unspent points from the bow, she would then be at the same point level as Bob: a 200 total point character with a 20 point bow and 20 XP. If both the bow and the axe have the Obvious Accessible Focus Limitation, they should have equal chances of losing their weapons. In the event Alice loses her bow, she would get the entire 20 points back at once that she spent on it (or whatever she hasn't gotten back through reimbursement as above); if Bob spent no points on his axe, he would have nothing to get back if he loses it. If they both have a -1 OAF Limitation... getting a Focus taken away is part of that. Neither of them should be angry, and whether one or the other gets taken away shouldn't be based on whether it's fair that Alice has paid points and Bob hasn't. If Alice's bow gets taken away (assuming it can't be recovered), Alice should get those points back, at least whatever she hasn't already gotten back as mentioned above. That would be "loss prevention" for the points, true. Assuming you're using Independent in your games (the general "you"), would you allow a character to regain their lost points by buying off the Independent Limitation on a lost item? I absolutely would. But I'd require the character to front the difference. If a 20-point item had a cost of 12 points with the Independent Limitation, meaning the character paid 12 points for it, then at the time at which they were able to spend the 8 points to buy off the Independent Limitation, they'd get the full 20 points back. But they'd have to have the 8 XP first. In case it's not obvious, I've been assuming throughout the thread that Independent is not in use. By the way, it's always been a rule that in order to have a magic item (weapon or otherwise), you have to pay for the entire thing, not just the cost difference between the mundane and magical versions, even if you would otherwise not pay points for the mundane version. GM's option, to be sure, but it's the default RAW.

People in this thread make good points. I'm leaning quite a bit more neutrally toward the idea. I'd probably still count any magic items toward the character's total when I'm working out total capabilities -- in that sense they're part of the character's points. But I don't necessarily see the need to charge points, as in requiring the character to allocate saved XP to an item. I'd make it a GM-decided option at the beginning of the campaign, for sure.

I'm evidently out of reactions for the day There are at least a couple of posts I have to hit.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you meant; I'm just trying to poke holes in your logic. If I paid 20 points to start the game with a magic sword, and Bob found a 20-point magic sword, how is that fair? Is there any way I can somehow, eventually, get my points back while keeping my sword? What if I find a magic sword, or other magic item, that also costs 20 points... can I give up my original sword to get those points back, while being allowed to keep the new item? What if the villain did pay points for it? Actually, that started out as a rhetorical question... but what if? What if paying points represents attunement a la D&D 5th edition. Meaning, what if Bob walks out with a 20-point magic sword that's attuned to his enemy? Certainly at some point the enemy might claim it back... but what if the enemy is using that as a way to spy on Bob? Presumably, the items for which points are charged are qualitatively better somehow than normal equipment. If it's barely better than a normal sword, I'm not sure I'd charge points for it. Time for me to explain my logic. I certainly wouldn't say "Bob, you found a magic sword, suddenly you owe me 20 points. Muahahaha!" If Bob finds a magic sword, even uses it, but chooses not to pay the points for it... his ability to keep it is based entirely on the GM's discretion. He's got it until, at least, the end of the session. If a character wants to claim an item, and keep it around, in much the same way as a D&D character would claim an item, then yes, I'd charge points for it. If they don't want to take a 20 point hit for it, or don't have the 20 points right now, that's fair. And we'd discuss it. If they have the XP and just don't want to spend it on the sword... they don't have to, but then we're back in GM discretion territory. If they were saving the XP for something else, but really want the sword... again, we'd discuss it. Perhaps Bob can make a "down payment" of a few points (25%? 5 points on a 20-point sword, how does that sound?), and pay 1-2 points per XP award until it's paid off. Maybe Bob doesn't learn the full functionality of the sword right away; maybe there are powers he has to learn about, and maybe he doesn't get access to those powers until he's paid for them. (This is actually not uncommon in source material!) To me, paying the points for it represents something similar to D&D 5e's attunement. You're claiming the item somehow. Adding it to your character sheet in whatever way that assures that it will stay around. Gaining full access to its powers.

This needs more visibility! Jason, how can we help?

Does this then mean that a character can start the game with magical swords and armor? If I don't have to pay points for magical plate, then why would I ever not have it? Another issue is, what if one or more players start feeling shortchanged? The last three magic items found were all fighter-y items, so Bob the Fighter is sitting pretty, at 200 points with another 150 points worth of magic items, but Alice the Rogue and Chuck the Wizard (at 200 points each) don't have the fun stuff and are a little miffed. Further still, if Chuck the Wizard can enchant his own items... does he pay points for them? If Bob doesn't have to pay points for his magic items, then Chuck shouldn't have to either. Alice is feeling a little more slighted now. Hopefully Bob and Chuck don't wake up one morning with their throats cut... When we say "the GM charges points" and "the character pays points" and "the power costs points", that's shorthand for what we're really doing, and comes out of years of habit to boot. You're not "paying" anything; they're on a balance sheet. When you "pay" them you're not handing them over, nor are you transferring them out of your account to the GM's, or anything else. (This was the problem with Independent as a Limitation and permanently losing points...) Mundane equipment that costs no points is considered to be entirely at the GM's discretion. If you start with a mundane sword and armor, and it gets taken away when you're captured, or destroyed by rust monsters, or falls in the ocean... it's gone. It's pretty likely that you'll be able to get replacements at the next town with a trading post or armourer, but they'll be as mundane as the previous set. The reasons we use character points as a measure of character power are, generally speaking, to have PCs start at the same level, to have them advance at the same level, and to have some way to roughly compare in power level with one another and the opposition. If I'm not going to charge a player character points for magic items, I'll use resource pools to balance them instead. Bob would get the points back to spend on something else. Which could be a different magical sword, but it could as easily be magical armor, a magical rope or a magical 10' pole. Or he could spend it on his stats, skills, talents, etc.

If one character is spending their XP as they go, for a Skill Level here, a stat increase there, and the other is saving for a big buy... I mean, receiving a magic item can count as advancement too. There are other ways to do it as well, adapted from earlier Champions works. Aaron Allston once suggested that a player might ask a GM something like, "Can you withhold some of my XP for a while? I want to gain a mystery power of some kind." To me, "I want to gain a magic item" sounds like something eminently worth banking points for, whether you're banking them on your character sheet, or in the GM's secret notes. Ultimately, though, if a 200 point fighter picks up a 15 real point magic sword and expects to keep it, shouldn't he then be considered a 215 point character? I've gone through heroic level campaigns in the past where I've looked down at my character sheet, after it's gone on for a while, and noticed that I have 25 XP or more that I haven't spent; depending on the game, that can be 5-8 sessions (which at the pace we were playing, was probably 3 weeks IRL). I've also had campaigns where I've played a wizard who started with a magic item because she made it herself. There's also the idea of the resource pool, which is normally used for equipment. The idea is that depending on the power level of the campaign, each character might have 50 or 75 points worth of equipment that they're carrying around. Their mundane equipment counts, and so if someone finds a magic sword, they just pick it up and carry it, and it slots into their resource pool. You could also be straight with the players up front. "Sometimes there will be magic items given as loot. You can consider them to be XP 'windfalls' if you want. I'll try to be fair to everyone, but if we get to a certain point in the campaign and you feel like you've been shortchanged, we can make that up with additional XP or an extra item for you." The XP awards are guidelines, and points worth of stuff can certainly be awarded every bit as much as points.

It depends entirely on the feel that you want. To me, it seems like it might take away some of the flavor of the game. I've never known using hit locations to add very much in the way of handling time, and as a GM I can say "He hits you in location 11 for 7 BODY," and let the player work out how much damage they take from it based on their defenses, armor, etc. Some GMs use flat values but allow players to used called hit locations. Be aware though that you're not letting in a character who has bought +8 CSLs vs. Hit Locations, and always calls head shots.

There's not really a lot of difference between the 5th and 6th edition Fantasy Hero genre books. If you have the 5th edition genre book, you can use it with Fantasy Hero Complete; the main drawback is that the game mechanics in it are meant for 5th. But if you've played 5th and 6th both, then you probably can work out the translations where necessary. Alternately, if you've played lots of 5e FH and it works for you and it's comfortable, why switch? My own favorite edition for Fantasy Hero is first edition, the standalone version released way back when. But 6th has been growing on me in a lot of ways.

If you assume that your total points are a measure of your power level and not a "currency" then it... hopefully? ... makes more sense. If Bob the Fighter above finds a magic sword, compare that to, for instance, Batman picking up a bad guy's tommy gun. (Old school Batman. Older, even.) He might use it to cover the bad guys; he might fire a burst to rip up a getaway car's tire. If he really thinks he needs to end someone, he might very well do it with that gun. Next issue? He's probably forgotten all about it. If, on the other hand, the writer has decided that he likes the idea of Batman carrying around a tommy gun, and he has it next issue, then that's when we consider Batman to have "spent the points" to carry a tommy gun. If Bob the Fighter doesn't spend the points, then his ability to keep and use the magic sword is entirely up to the GM. If he spends the points, then... to be honest, it's still up to the GM, but if afterward he loses the sword, he should either have a chance to get the sword back, or he should get the points back. (Or maybe part of its magical properties are that it finds its way back to him. The Focus Limitation gives plenty of ideas that can be adapted to this.) Consider also this. With GM permission, Bob could begin the game carrying a magic sword, if he paid the points for it (maybe it's an heirloom handed down from his grandfather, Robertus). Or, once he has some saved up XP and decides he wants a magic sword, he could say to the GM: "I'm going to find an enchanter and commission a magic sword." Or even, "Hey GM, I'd like to acquire a magic sword soon, and I've got some XP saved up..." and leave it up to the GM how you get it. You could assume, if you wish, that spending the points on a magic item "attunes" you to it the way it does in D&D 5e (and maybe you have to spend an hour studying it, getting a feel for it, and so on, in order to spend the points and to attune with it). That's how it becomes part of your character sheet rather than just another piece of equipment. There's sort of an unwritten rule in Fantasy Hero going back decades that "there shouldn't be assembly lines of mages turning out +1 swords by the bucketful" or similar. There have been rules in previous editions to enforce that,; there used to be a Limitation to the effect that the points you spend on the item are bound into it permanently, but they sort of turn those points into a permanently spendable currency rather than a meta-level measure of power. It also threw problems when, for instance, that fighter PC wanted to go to an enchanter and commission a magic sword -- technically, the enchanter paid their points, permanently, in that case, so the fighter would still have a magic sword without paying points for it. That also led to silliness such as having special, magical materials, that the enchanter might send you on a quest for, that had character points embedded in them, that the enchanter could use to build the sword with. Which certainly matches up with some source material, where the enchanter sends you on a quest in order to gain the magic sword, but... doesn't really solve the problem we're talking about. The best way to solve the "assembly lines of magic items" "problem" is for the GM to say no, there aren't assembly lines of magic items in this world. (And if the GM wants a magic item rich world? It's easy enough for the GM to say yes instead of no.) Edited to add: And also, a magic item doesn't have to have the Focus Limitation! If it doesn't, then it doesn't get taken away. It could certainly be Restrainable, but without it being a Focus, it's basically another power that Bob has. Its special effect is that it's a magic sword, but it's not a Focus Limitation when he can point his hand, confidently call out "Swordicus! To me!" and it flies to him like Mjolnir to Thor. I hope this is helpful. If not, ask more questions!

In the world of the Arcana Practica, the Thaumic Age began some hundred to hundred and twenty years ago. This was the beginning of systematized study of magic. Before that time, "wizards" (charlatans) would ply their trades, often getting hired on into official positions. Some of these wizards had some actual power, by means of knacks (magical talents that some people, then and now, possessed), but being a wizard was as much about putting on a show as it was about working actual magic. Often, wizards would take on apprentices, some of which had knacks of their own, many of which did not. Their training methods were as much flim-flammery as their wizardry. There was a big scandal, as most kingdoms, governments, etc., gave their wizards the choice of hanging or beheading (sometimes even burning at the stake was offered), but one group (a confederation of duchies) instead commissioned a study on why some wizards could actually do real magic and some couldn't. It turned into a long running study on magic in general, that began the Thaumic Age. Arcana, singular arcanum, refers to a type of magic: air, fire, light, lightning, animals, etc. Practica, singular practicum, refers to a magical technique: create, sense, bind, conjure, dismiss, cloak, etc. Together, these are a spell's Arcanum and Practicum (often abbreviated as "A and P"), and the overall organized body of magical knowledge and pedagogy is referred to as the Arcana Practica. The incidence of knacks has gone down in the general population as the Arcana Practica has taken hold; no one is sure exactly why, but there are a number of competing theories. Learning a number of spells that share a common practicum allows you to buy a Skill (PS) with that practicum, which you can roll as a complementary skill roll to your Magic Skill Roll. Some individuals have an "affinity" with an arcanum, which in game terms is a few Skill Levels that apply to magical and mundane manifestations. So, for instance, an affinity with fire would help you with casting spells of the arcanum of fire, as well as with building fires mundanely; an affinity with animals would improve your spellcasting on animals, as well as your Animal Handling and other animal related Skills. Spells would initially be bought for full point cost, though as the game progresses you can work your way into Multipowers and potentially a VPP (based on arcana). Characters can also buy knacks, which are just a magical power with an A and P. Sufficient study of thaumatology and Metamagic can help you turn your knack into an arcanum. Finally, spells are divided into tiers, based solely on the prerequisites required. Tier 0 spells require no prerequisites; anyone who is not "athaumic" (nonmagical) can learn them, and none of them require a skill roll. Tier 1 spells have a basic level of prerequisites; some might have a particular tier 0 spell, others might require a minimum skill in a practicum, or an affinity, or a knack. Tier 2 spells have more extensive lists of prerequisites; higher levels in various related Skills, demonstrated minimum ability to cast certain tier 1 spells, possibly certain knacks or other magical talents. There are no tier 3 spells, unless you are a disgruntled wannabee who has barely passed their basic Arcana Practica and thinks that there's some kind of conspiracy keeping you from learning tier 2 spells.

To pay the thread tax, I've got a work in progress: the Arcana Practica. At the moment, it's flavor heavy and mechanics light. It's very much a hard magic, "scientific" magic system.

I was honestly wondering why that wasn't in sixth edition as well. As GM, I'd house rule it in. "Limited Power" can cover a lot of ground...