Duke Bushido

The obvious one to me is the Cutlass. It was actually designed for close combat on shipboard, can chop almost as well as an axe, but still capable of thrusting, while being short enough for use in tight compartments.
 

Duke, you raised your kids right.
 
Dean Shomshak

Trolling the fanbases ....
 

My apologies, folks!  I had no intention to abandon the discussion, but I confess: after spending 40 minutes working out a reply on thia accursed touch screen, some glitch or other popped a message- "an error has occurred" then the site reloaded and poof!  It was all gone.
 
I kinda sorta rage quit and went to bed.
 
Anyway, onward!
 

 
 
 
 
 
You are quite right, Sir; you did not.  I made an assumption based on your couching of your comments.  Remembering that you were commenting about the difficulty a magic-wielding character would have as buying spells would handicap his ability to buy things that would stack him equally against other types of characters, etc--  I believe that you can see why I might have drawn that conclusion.
 
Still, mea culpa; ego paenitet in plena: tu es omnino excusari.
 
Okay, I wanted "exonerated," but I haven't practiced Latin in a few decades now. If anyone know the proper word, I will edit it in where "excused" is serving as a placeholder.
 
But, as the conversation has been fun so far, let's get back to it!
 
 
 
 
Agreed.  But if one special sort of expenditure is unusually costly, then there may be a genuine handicap: if someone designs their world so that spells are-  say ten points each, or twenty points each, or- well, as you see: the more expensive spells are- or even the more individualized and unique they are, which would require a larger number of spells....  Well, obviously, a guy swinging a garden rake is going to come out well ahead in cost and possibly even utility.
 
But if all expenditures are more or less equal, then there isn't really any handicap or disadvantage: it is no more different than choosing to spend points on CON instead of CV, or END instead of REC, of Forensics instead of Security Systems: both characters had equal access, made rhe same number of decisions, spent roughly the same amount of points, and have roughly the same amount of points left.  Nothing lopsided or unfair in that.
 
 
 
He doesn't
 
 
 
Or that
 
 
 
And sweet Deity on a Stick, does he not have to do that.
 
As before, to continue this discussion and keep it on topic, I would prefer to avoid anything related to Martial Arts; that really does require an entirely different and very involved conversation just to establish a baseline from which to start.
 
Staying to this conversation, though, every single one of these "must haves" is entirely up to the GM when he designs the world: what is absolutely necessary, etc, and not so much the law of the rules.  In fact, Skill Levels can do everything all of these "must haves" do, and even skill levels are not mandatory.  An excellent idea, to be sure, but not mandatory.  The GM decides if he will require them for whatever reasons (honestly, in heroic-level games, I have always considered a lot of "mandatory" familiarise and the like to be simple point sucks, which-  well, handicaps anyone required to buy them if there are other equally-valid character concepts who are not required to buy these things, then yeah; that guy is getting a bit shafted.
 
Or, circling back around:  agreed. 
 
 
 
 
Oops-  I jumped the gun with the previous reply.  You are correct: spend points on one thing, you sont have them to spend gain elsewhere.  That is the nature of points-buy systems: enforced uniqueness because most folks will have a favorite thing for their concept that will take points from their available total, and rather than copy identically an effective build, they spend the rest of the build compensating for whatever hit they took getting their main item or items.  But the size of the hit, again, is not a requirement laid out in the rules; it is laid out by the GM for each and every game.
 
 
 
Yes, but again: this is a function of character generation and concept.  If someone wants to build Batman, then yes; short of writer fiat, he is going to be absolutely useless in a light-speed running gun battle between Superman and I am really going to need some help coming up with a name of some Superman-level villain, but you get the point.
 
But if your game euns through a spot of skill-heavy action, Batman is _definitely_ your guy as opposed to-- well, I have no idea again.  Does Green Lantern have skills?  The movie suggested no, but I really have no idea.
 
Even then, though-  at the risk of of doing the broken record thing, this isn't a rules-created situation: rhw player decided he wanted a skills-heavy or skills-light character, the GM approves it, then ran a game inappropriate for the character.
 
There are a lot of places to lay the blame here, but the rules isnt one od them.
 
 
 
 
 
Well I still agree: of you spend points haphazardly, you get odd results.
 
But if you spend the points neesed to take your longbow damage to 6d6 RKA , and a magician has spent roughly  the same amount to create a call-down-the-lighting spell that does 6d6 RKA, what is the problem?
 
 
 
 
However, this entire thing is something of a sidetrack; I don't know that we ever visited tour original question:
 
 
 
For what it ia worth, I am okay with it.  For several years, it qas the only way we played it: we were using Champions rules- first 1e, then 2e- long before there was a Fantasy HERO; Champions was bereft any sort of money system- it didn't even hint at costs for the precioua few weapons it statted out.  We totally got the "your Killing Attack could be a sword" and 'your Force Field could be magic" aspect though, and you bought those with points, so....  
 
 
 
 
Compare Defenses to Defenses; Offenses to Offenses; survivability (story type; not combat type).  Civilian effectiveness, etc.
 
Not the points spent on them; not the the active points, but the numbers that matter in the game: damage done; damage resisted; ability to actually thrive in the game world, and appropriateness for any long-term plans laid out for the campaign.
 
Those are the metrics I use  when I evaluate characters for approval.
 
 

Ah, we'll then:
 
Chris:  no; I don't think it's something I care for.  Thank you though (referring to Moxie).
 
Hammerhead:  yeah; it'a really hard to find.  Dad uses to have to ride to Maine to get it!
 
Chris: really?
 
Hammerhead: yeah!  Not any more, though.
 
Chris:  so where do you get it now?
 
Hammerhead:  they have it at Cracker Barrel now!"
 
Chris: Cracker Barrel?
 
Noisy:  you know-  where white people respawn.
 
Duke:  [damned near dies laughing.]
 
 

You remind me of an event was back in the 8ps at the Rec Center on Fort Stewart: eleven of us were rollinf,up me,characters in front of the GM (GM insisted, and as a fan or Is no Array, I was only too happy to oblige).  He _did_ allow players to either accept it as is, or to swap their highest result with the lowest result (onlt guy I have ever seen offer that).
 
We,all,watched with great amusement as one od 4he military guys presenr rolled six straight 12s dor his characteristics.  Something else I have never seen since. 
 
 

Agreed.  GURPS Old West (second or third edition is fine: same book; different covers) really is _the_ definitive sourcebook on the genre from a gaming perspective.
 
 

I solved that by making wizards pay only for the capacity to cast spells of a certain power level, but the spells themselves are purchased with money or discovered like any other equipment.  Then I added in many martial arts packages and talents that people can buy to be better with their equipment and/or spells.

There is no reason a wizard cannot wear armor, this is not D&D where a wizard cannot cast spells in armor.   A GM could setup a house rule saying a wizard cannot cast in armor, but then the problem is GM created, instead of being due to getting equipment without paying points for it.  Also there is nothing in the rules that DEF from armor cannot stack with those of a spell.   That means the wizard is likely to have better defenses than the warrior.  Even if the GM does not allow stacking a wizard could purchase his armor spell as damage negation.   
 
If you make spells cost money instead of points, do you make talents also cost money instead of points?  In reality purchasing spells and purchasing talents are pretty much the same thing.  You pay points for the ability to do something extraordinary that others cannot.  
 
As long as you have enough talents and skills available for non-casters to purchase there is no imbalance.   
 

Nothing says you can't, and in fact there are "worked example" magic systems in Fantasy Hero for 6e that do these things.  Including "Magic Familiarity" skills that treat spells the same as weapons that warrior-types can acquire.
 
Barring a GM using a magic system like those, though, the default Hero System assumptions say that if you want anything extraordinary, like specialized (for which read "magical") weapons, armor, spells, special abilities, etc., you would pay the points. 
 
Effectively, paying a point for Weapon Familiarity: Blades lets you carry around a blade without having to pay points for it.  Treat it as a Perk, if you like, the same way a GM might charge a 1-point Perk in a Champions game to allow a character to carry around a cell phone;  they can both be taken away or destroyed in play and have to be re-acquired with money to replace. 

I understand what you are saying; I do.
 
However, you are still stuck in that mindset:
 
 
I don't wish to in any way appear as offensive when I say this. But doe this particular mini-conversation, I would take it as a personal favor of we just avoided any discussion of HERO's "Martial Arts System."  I have a grindstone with me, obviously, but I did not bring that particular axe with me this time.
 
 
 
Why do you feel it is mandatory that spells cost points or be expensive?  That is the D and D prejudice showing through.
 
If I have a computer programming skill, I have a chance to use any computer I encounter.
 
What, anywhere in the HERO System Rules stops me from building a universe where the only rhing differentiating magic users from anyone else is five points of "manipulate magic" skill, allowing them the chance to use any naturslly-occuring source of magic or magic item?
 
What, specifically, says I can't do that? 
 
What says magic has to work _any_ particular way, or that magic can't just be a pool of points that I buy from which I can build whatever spell I want?
 
Or maybe all magic in this world comes from spell books and nowhere else, and only those who can read can wield magic?  Or perhaps spells are one point each, limited only by the endurance of the caster, or a special Endurance pool--
 
Or, again, only those with "use magic" skill for dive points, etc. If that is how your world works,  then magic weapons are just normal weapons unless wielded by a magician. (Borrwed that feom a mini campaign I ran for my son's friends:  all magic comes,from music; only skilled musicians can wield it-- they are in the school band, obviously.)
 
If you have decided that magic must cost xharacter points, that is not the rules; that is _you_.  If you have decided that magic spells are bought individually and are super-HERO expensive, that is also _not_ the rules; that is _you_.
 
 
 
 

No, I was mostly in the lobby, mopping up the dirt you philistines tracked in.

It depends on your SPD.
 
Consult the chart for your Phase and ask the GM which Segment it is.
 
 
 

I understand what you are saying; I do.
 
However, you are still stuck in that mindset:
 
 
I don't wish to in any way appear as offensive when I say this. But doe this particular mini-conversation, I would take it as a personal favor of we just avoided any discussion of HERO's "Martial Arts System."  I have a grindstone with me, obviously, but I did not bring that particular axe with me this time.
 
 
 
Why do you feel it is mandatory that spells cost points or be expensive?  That is the D and D prejudice showing through.
 
If I have a computer programming skill, I have a chance to use any computer I encounter.
 
What, anywhere in the HERO System Rules stops me from building a universe where the only rhing differentiating magic users from anyone else is five points of "manipulate magic" skill, allowing them the chance to use any naturslly-occuring source of magic or magic item?
 
What, specifically, says I can't do that? 
 
What says magic has to work _any_ particular way, or that magic can't just be a pool of points that I buy from which I can build whatever spell I want?
 
Or maybe all magic in this world comes from spell books and nowhere else, and only those who can read can wield magic?  Or perhaps spells are one point each, limited only by the endurance of the caster, or a special Endurance pool--
 
Or, again, only those with "use magic" skill for dive points, etc. If that is how your world works,  then magic weapons are just normal weapons unless wielded by a magician. (Borrwed that feom a mini campaign I ran for my son's friends:  all magic comes,from music; only skilled musicians can wield it-- they are in the school band, obviously.)
 
If you have decided that magic must cost xharacter points, that is not the rules; that is _you_.  If you have decided that magic spells are bought individually and are super-HERO expensive, that is also _not_ the rules; that is _you_.
 
 
 
 

In FH1e, characters did start with any weapons they had at least one Skill Level with.  That doesn't seem to be the case in any of the later books, though I would allow it myself in Fantasy Hero (and have done in my Star Wars Hero game). 
 
N.B. I also assume that spells, magic items, and other things that characters pay points for are exempt from AP/DC limits, though as GM I reserve the right to decide otherwise in play if it breaks things at the table.  The rationale being, the equipment available for no point cost is already limited by STR minima, DCs, and DEF values; paying points, especially in a heroic level game where fewer points are available, should grant you greater abilities. 

Magic swords may captivate audiences, but sling bullets win the war.

A fighter does not get a 2d6 HKA by buying a skill level.   They get one for purchasing a sword with cash.  Why cannot a wizard buy a wand that gives him a 2d6 RKA for cash?   There is nothing that states magic items have to be rare and expensive.  The monetary cost of a magic item is not something that is set by the rules.  Your problem is being created by your own house rules.  From a game mechanic standpoint, a bow and a wand of magic missiles will cost similar points.   
 
Most FH characters I have seen eventually get magic items.  The most common magic items seem to be weapons and armor.  Logically caster focused items should be more common.  In most campaigns it is spell casters that create items.  Why are they creating so many items for other types of characters instead of for themselves?
 
Also, if casters are creating the magic items why cannot a PC caster create their own magic items?  Doing so might require a skill.  So, if the PC caster buys the equivalent of inventor, they might be able to create their own magic items.  If this is the case the caster is actually has the advantage. 
 

A mage can also use that sword...

You know he's back in print in Dyskami's Absolute Power, right?  The game is nothing but a new edition of SAS with the setting time-skipped forward a bit.  No better balanced than ever either, I might add.  And Kreuzritter is as much a cardboard cutout of a master baddie as ever, so if you liked him before you'll like him there, he hasn't changed in any meaningful way.  But he does have quite a few more words written about him now - they split the setting into its own book, making it a $120 two-volume game if you want the world and the rules.

And, if tradition holds, will be discussed in 6-9 months hence.
 
 

 
 
My standard answer is "it depends _entirely_ on the feel I am going for at the time."
 
  

These are all good points, and in general, the points that tend to come most often with this conversation.  The problem is at their core, these points are all based on arguments that are biased toward emulating D and D (either pro or con, but still bases on the idea of D and D, where fighters buy stuff and wizards learn it.
 
Branching out a bit, we find _other_ good points that counter the arguments:
 
 
 
 
That is an _excellent_ point that the D and D model fails to consider:  no reason your sorcerer isn't sporting a STR 23 and a CON 18, and wields a sword like a barbarian.
 
 
 
It's no secret that I hated D and D from the get go, and like it even less now; mostly because I found it's system to be terrible and its assumptions to be assinine.  The Fantasy Trip, though, as many flaws as it had, demonstrated _easily_ that there were other ways to do fantasy.
 
Even Traveller, the science fiction game against which all others are judged, had a more interesting way to handle "magic-like abilities:"  roll some dice; maybe you got something; maybe you didn't.  (A friend once claimed to have run the numbers.  He said it worked out to something like 1 in 1300 player characters, but I never tried to verify that)  in all other ways, you operated like any other character save one or more abilities that could only be had by random chance operating at random levels-
 
What I am saying is this argument-  eh...  More precisely, this topic of discussion exists _only_ because on  some subconscious level, the person asking assumes that all fantasy shares the same horribly-flawed magic v might dichotomy as Dungeons and Dragons, when the reality is that _good_ fantasy won't go anywhere near them.
 
For example, why the assumption that magic is somehow points-expensive?  It can just as easily be a skill roll (manipulate cosmos) or prayer (ransom actions of the GM) of even a two-point perk: "can perform magic" with the wizard buying his spell books or scrolls oe what have you with cash money the same as the the gladiator buys his swords or the healer buys his elixirs.
 
It might even be something else entirely:  perhaps this world has a set of know interactions between various magical elements- or magical reactions between mundane items-  and the magician spends cash for his spell components and makes a knowledge skill check to see what he is able to make from components on hand.
 
 
The only thing the "wizards spend points and everyone else spends cash" mindset does is prove the D and D is so pervasive that it can screw up HERO, too.
 
 
 
 

I, too, prefer "What."