Spyritwind

Re: Magic Systems: Why spells are 1/3 cost It's a balance issue. With out a multipower spells cost a character way too much. Fighting classes based on 150 pt character's can do 3d6 hka with a two handed weapon or fire two arrows per phase at 2d6 rka fairly easily while retaining a fairly high ocv, dcv, armor etc. If a mage has to spend 15 character points just to cast a decent offense spell while having a lower con, dex etc. not to mention he has to be to wave his arms, sing, concentrate, rub a rabbit's foot and wait an extra phase then ... it's not a very appealing.

Re: The HERO System 5th Edition, Revised Wow, great response guyz, ty Some one is running a FH campaign in my area so I dusted off my old book. ty

Re: The HERO System 5th Edition, Revised I have played Champions and the Hero system since the 80's and bought the 5th Edition Hero book when it first came out. I knew a revised verion came out, but I didn't realize that included an additional 200+ pages !!! ... until now. My curiousity is this; how much of this just rules clarifications, or additions and how much of this is just 'fluff'? Fluff may not sound fair because it is so subjective, but what I mean by this is stuff like "how to run a campaign" or "how to gm". I really like all the power examples spread through out the book and the side bars and there is nothing wrong with correcting errata or clarifying confusing rules so those are good. I suppose I'm just wondering how many of those pages would be important to me. 10? 50? 100? Is there a link or download for the rules edditing and/or clarification points at least? NEway ... I'm now feeling a bit lacking in my 5th ed rule book. I suppose ignorance was bliss. Now it seems 6th edition is about to come out ... some time ... this year right? ... and I'm wondering if it's worth bothering to get the 600 page tome with out knowing how significant the 6th edition rules changes will be. I'm also wondering if 6th edition will be a great tome (I like great tome's) or if a skinnier version will be put out? Will that then be followed later by a revised 6th ed great tome? I suppose in a perfect world (in my mind anyway) 6ed would contain every thing 5ed revised had only updated with the new rules changes. I hate not having all the core rules, but buying a $50.00 tome that's about to be out dated soon seems silly. Sooo ... when's 6th coming out? I apologize in advace if this is wrong thread for my questions, ramblings, etc.

Re: Turakian Age Questions I know I'm not one of the all time poster champions on here (used to post on here years ago, but have gotten away from pen & paper rpg's for a bit and some what from the hero system too many dnd players), but there is some thing very kewl about the top dog of the company responding to posts I have a lot of catching up to do on some of the new material (have about 7 books since 5red) and have some deciding to do; just can't quite afford it all. I'm also trying to encourage a friend of mine to run fantasy hero and I'd most likely help him out with the mechanics. The whole idea may wait until 9th comes out since he doesn't even have 5red yet. He still has the BBB. NEway ... I'm rambling. Most of all; ty for keeping Hero alive all these years. Hopefully it will grow and become even more popular again. I'll try to help nudge that along again myself.

Re: Turakian Age Questions Interesting. I haven't bought any of the world books yet for fantasy hero. Does Steve implement the /3 for all the fantasy hero campain worlds or just this one? I must admit I was tempted to just let people make multipowers. The initial cost would be high, but each spell after that would be cheap. I suppose that wouldn't work very well for the character that wanted just a spell or two though.

Just curious if anyone has the champs III character sheets Either that or perhaps there are some good home brew ones. spyritwind@aol.com

Hmmmm I suppose I'll delay a final verdict until I can see a larger image of the cover, but off the cuff I like the old (2d edition) cover art better. The style of art work is too comic, super heoric looking and doesn't have the right feel to it. I don't know that I would actualy be attracted to the product based on the cover and I might even be turned off by it. True enough since the Hero system was first a super hero role playing game and also a heroic level system later one can easily run a very fantastic fantasy campaign, but my reaction to the cover would be that it was a decent cover for a 2nd tier company that is advertising uber super fantasitic fantasy gamming. Which isn't necisarily a bad thing, but I don't think that is the majority of the market. This is also not a slam on the quality of the art work, but on the style and feel of it and it's appropriateness in it's context. Either way I feel confident it will be a good product.

Wow. This issue is always fun. I suppose my perspective and opinions may fall in to the minority category, but here they go. I do see NCM as primarily being a genre thing for the purpose of game balance and keeping thing 'in' genre. Obviously humans in real life aren't waking around with a str of 30. A cap of 20 works for me. Fantasy literature (and definately super heroic) do not follow in the steps of reality though. Epic fantasy character may bend, or even break what is actualy possible and I'm sure we are all aware that 'super' hero's, that are only supposed to be well trained human perform feats that are totally impossible in 'real' life. So ... the maximum human limit changes to match the genre. Running a realistic gritty modern day mercenary campaign? Probably stick with 20 as being the max ... period. Running standard fantasy fiction? Pay double after 20 works to keep it from becoming too common among your players. Super hero's? You can just about throw it out the window for many stats. No need to bother with a stat limit since players have sooo many points that the issue really becomes spending them where you should for your concept, but obviously not over what the GM allows. True enough it could be said that one shouldn't spend points beyond what their concept includes ... Varying characteristic caps among races make perfect sense to me, whether or not there is a doubling cost at some point. A halfling being able to be as strong as the orc, northern man mixed breed doesn't make sense. Or course if you are alllowing non conservative character concepts such as: the druid fairy queen kissed me so my half orc barbarian has a com of 30 then ... okay. If that's the style of fantasy campaign you are running then characteristic max's may not mean much to you. The problem of course is how do you adjust the points if you vary the characteristic maxima? Yes, the old 4th rule didn't work because you wasted many points that were never used if you wanted to be certain races and you felt cheated. As it has been said, you could have just made a better human with the same points so why pay points in essence to visualize your character being a dwarf? Making stats powers for altering races makes sense to me, but then the problem may be that races, other than human presumably, will have an unfair advatage with out paying any extra points for it. Now the disadvantage might be in playing a human. My first thought was to go with the old 4th edition rules regarding stats in a racial package deal, but using a -1/2, or -1/4 limitation on it. This means it doesn't cost as much, but at least it does cost you something. Example: Half Orc strength + 5 to maxima 1) 4th Ed = 10 pts 2) Stat as power= 10 pts, but has the advantage of actually giving you 3 points of strength to your base and you automatically have an increased max for free. 3) 4th ed with -1/2 limitation = 7 pts This would leave the 3 extra points for increasing the base. TOO MESSY right? Okay, how about adding an advantage on the 'stat as a power' idea since you are also getting the benefit of increasing your maximum and not just adding to the base. Perhaps a +1/2 advantage? The above +5 Str would then cost 7 pts. 2 more points than the human with a 15 str, but 3 points cheaper between a human and a half orc each with a 25 strength. A fairly balanced way of handling it IMO. This way you pay more than normal if you don't meat the maximum, but less if you do. Depeding on your character concept and race this could either be a minor disadvantage, or minor advantage. Strength is potentially the most easily abused stat for these purposes though in a fantasy setting since strenght plays such an important part of game mechanics and the strength stat is so cheap. One I recommend making Str cost 2 pts per point. Example: Dwarf Dex -1 (-4.5) Con +3 (+9) Body +2 (+6) Pre -2 (-3) Com -2 (-1.5) Pd +1 (+1.5) Total: +7.5 Yes I used decimals and added them together for a grand total which is unconventional. This would not include changes to running, or any racial/cultural package skill, talents, perks or what ever that may accompany the same package. I'm sure this will get flamed since it doesn't mechanically fit the 'way things are done', but it's an idea for those that want to give the idea a try that aren't bothered by that. And on another note. How things are payed for, for any race, creature, animal, or object that is not being played by a player really doesn't matter in terms of NCM. Really! Think about it? Who cares? A minotaur is a minotaur no matter how it's payed for or how many points it is. It doesn't matter until a player wants to play one (and if I allowed it) because the character's abilities and cost's would need to be balanced with the other characters. Until then it really doesn't matter. NEway ... just an idea in between 4th ed and the stat for power idea's.

Part of the problem is that there is so much Diablo (arcade game) mentality in 'roleplaying' these days. Many people have been playing hack & slash, kill the monster, get the treasure & go up in level mentality and have never really learned how to roleplay. Many people don't even realize that they are not role playing, but are roll playing instead. It's just an arcade game on paper. Now this doesn't make the game bad ... for some people. Much of the mass market is completely happy with the ease of this type of game play, but for others it can be quite frustrating and even boring. It can be very hard to find a group that fits your persnal style of play and maturity level ... unless your 15 - 22 with a Diablo mindset.

350 is beautiful. No more spending hours shaving points and nearly all characters having OIHID, or FOCI. At 350 the character becomes a well rounded (within concept) and fleshed out begining, or moderately powered character. Of course 350 points can be abused by players, but then again so can 250. The problem isn't the points, but the players and or the GM. Part of the problem might be thinking of special powers or tricks for the character. Most of us have spent so many years just trying to squeeze out the most basic charater concept because 250 was not enough points that our brains have trouble inventing things like "brick tricks" because they were never much of an option before. Who could afford them? If your players look alike at 350 then I'd sit down with all of them and work on some things. There are plenty of advantages to differintiate EB's. The look and feel of the powers can help as well. Two characters with EB's can still use them a bit differently. One may have two more dice than the other and not have flight to become a weapons platform. The other might be more agile with flight and be more of a mobile straffing unit. Don't let everyone purchase flash defense, power defense, etc. Okay, if they have a danger room to practice in they could all end up with acrobatics and if they have the skills and facilities to do so they could all end up with flash defense lensed, but power defense is harder to come by. As other's have pointed out fleshing out background can make a big difference as well. 350 is only too many points if not used in certain ways. If it's only used to build your character verticaly instead of horizontaly then it can be a problem. To me bricks pose the biggest threat in this regard, but not limited to that character type. With the additional 100 points a brick 'could' purchase an additional 40 Strength with Reduced END, an additional 10 Constitution, an additional 5 Body and an additional 10 Pd & 10 Ed. Scary! Just use the veto stamp.

Combat luck should be damage reduction instead so you don't have to worry about issue's like this. Being much more expensive people don't want to purchase it this way though.

Some good points posted already. There are sooo many ways you can balance this out and many of them are mentioned. Myself I've never had a problem with multipowers being used. Of course I empliment an AP cap so that the mage can't crank out a 5d6 RKA. I also allow a secondary multipower to be purchased which will stack on top of the first one. It will have all the same limitations as the first main MP, but will add the limitation (only advantages). This helps for purchasing spell concepts that are just too weak to be worth it once you stack all the advantages on it that you need. For 150 pt characters I allow a 40 pt AP cap for the 'raw' power and +20 for advantages only. This doesn't solve all the problems, but it helps a little for spell like 'sleep'. At least you can get in a 6d6 NND for one target or 4d6 NND for a small area for instance. Points well taken on the cost of powers for FH. Defensive and Movement powers are too cheap for FH and as mentioned to aid, drains, tranfers, etc are a bit expensive. Adjustments need to be made on those. NEway ... If your spell caster has enough limitations and RSR there shouldn't be a problem and YES concertrate is a much bigger disadvantage than - 1/4. Spell casters at half DCV and perhaps needing a litle extra time be that full phase, going later in your phase, or next segment, or what ever can hurt a lot. On the issue of MP's. They cost a lot up front if you want a decent power level so that will scare off casual use of them and RSR const a lot of additional points as well if you want to make your rolls most of the time. It ends up being an investment that's for certain. Sure, the mage can then buy a new spell every adventure or two, but then again the fighter can buy a new skill level or MA manuever that often as well right? If it cost END to run the spells then the invisable, flying, ego blasting mage wont be able to keep that up for long. Besides, the mage has to stay alive long enough to power up three spells to put himself in that position and there by give up the entire first turn of combat. This assuming he doesn't get crowned while at 1/2 DCV, or that he had to cancel his spell which required a full phase in order to run away from a charging orc with a battle axe, or what ever. I'm not saying mages may not be usefull in a campaign (all depends on what the GM allows), but even mages with MP's as I've mentioned are not nescisarily gods. Fighters doing 2 1/2 to 3d6 hka with high OCV's while wearing heavy armor can do a whole lot of damage. Heavy long bows fired twice in one round from a high OCV archer can hurt too. The amount of points a mage has to spend on magic and spells usually mean that they have a lower str, dex, con & body, if not also spd & pd/ed. This means lower stun, recovery, easy to stun and knock out as well as having a lower base CV, or at least not usually a high one. It doesn't get much worse than starting combat with little to no armor (if playing DnD style mage), low stun, easy to stun, low body, moderate to low DCV and no more than a 3 spd when you realize your first action will be to use up your entire first phase to try to cast a protection spell on your self, so that you might survive if you are hit even once, while remaining at half DCV until the phase after that one and your not even 100% certain you will even make your Magic Skill Roll. Even if a mage manages to crank out a 2 1/2d6 AP lighting bolt it's likely to be more inaccurate than any figther attack and may even suffer from range penalties. The right powers at the right level used in the right ways can be nasty and this may often be in non combat situtions which could upset game balance. Yes, you have to be careful of what you allow, but most of the time I don't think it should be a problem. Oh, another reason why some might not the use of MP's is because you really miss the deference between the cost of spells. Some spells may, or should have certain limitations put on them do to flavor, but it may not make an actual point difference in an MP slot. Have the mage purchase Spell Points. 10 SP's cost one point. Then spend the SP's on the MP slots with the catch that you pay REAL (SP) points for them instead of the points divided by five or ten. This means that you get what you pay for. No more cheesing the point breaks.

I wouldn't allow combat luck to work if armor is worn. Considering how cheap it is and how useful it is in a heroic level game I wouldn't even allow a limitation to be put on it. I'd probably even raise the point cost. NEway ... As some have already posted and as you already know it cost points to have characteristics above Joe Normal and it's not that way in D&D. I'd say allow at least 40 points for starting stats and maybe an additional 10 points for back ground skills such as professions, languages, perks, knowledge skills, etc. etc. Then add how ever many point you think being a first level gumby would give you. I'd probably start at 75 pts in your case, but that might be 2nd level. It all depends on how the points are spent. Assuming at least 40 pts are spent on stats and 10 on what players consider borring background skills the characters shouldn't be too crazy. As always though you have to watch for any thing that will unbalance your campaign and veto it. +5 OCV with Long Sword only cost 10 points. You don't want that at '1st level' do ya? Armor availabilty will make a big difference with the fighters in the party. If they start out with scale in wont be so bad, but if they have resistant defenses of six or more it gets a bit tougher. Even for all the great things Hero is and for all the bashing D&D 3E gets on these boards the older I get the more I appreciate 3E even though I still like Hero as well.

There are probably a few ways of looking at this. Depending on the armor encumberance rules you're using your knight could suffer from a lower DCV and there fore get hit more often. The rules from Fred really don't do justice to game balance issue in regards to heroic level characters wearing armor. If the knight were suffereing at least a -3 DCV that might help to balance issues. In theory, the elves and halfling would, or at least could have higher DCV's than the knight and not get hit as often. Since the Hero system is primary based on stun and not getting knocked out the knight may still take stun damage even if no body is taken. I do realize though that a natural pd of eight with full plate on is still difficult from a normal grunt with only a 1D6, or 1D6+1 attack to do any stun damage. Other non combat things to consider is things like not being able to sneak well, climb ropes, swim, etc. Assuming the knight in the armor is definately the, or at least one of the 'fighters' of the group then they should be good at ... er ... fighting. If the other characters are not primarly fighter types then they shouldn't be expected to measure up the tank of the party in combat. Those characters should of course have other abilities to contribute to the parties adventuring success. That to say that not all the characters should balance out in terms of combat. If there is multiple fighter types in the group and the tank is over whelming comparred to the other one then just make certain the armor is limiting the DCV of the fighter. The lightly armored fighter will still probably be at a disadvantage, but hopefully not too much. Lower DVC, End at the end of every turn and even a loss of running movement can be impossed for medium and heavy armors. The lighter armored fighter maintains agility, mobility, potential sneakiness, etc. You could also gear some of your encounters so that there is one nastier thing with some underlings. The 'weaker' characters could handle the weaker things while the tank of the party could handle to tougher monster, or whatever. This is not plausable all the time, but after awhile the knight will probably just go for the big thing realizing he/she is the one that needs to tackle it. If the tank and the party doesn't realize this at first they should adjust quickly to survive. For example: You could toss out eight goblins lead by a great orc. The tank of the group should probably be the one to postition him/her self to lock horns with the great orc while the others polish up the goblins. Just some thoughts. Hope they help.

I'll have to check out the DH thing. Sounds cool.