tesuji

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword Interesting... What i did mechanics-wise was to add a "weapon damage" component to the typical fantasy package deals. Warriors had more damage base with a broader category of weapons (smaller limitation on cost.) Also had a block of pts set aside for "combat tricks. Rogues has less base damage and more narrow scope of weapons it applied to. had similar block of points set aside for combat tricks. mages had even less base damage and smallest group of weapons etc. No pts set aside for combat tricks. Then i had a list of maybe 20ish combat tricks ()as more were invented they were added ranging in cost from 5 cp to 20 cp each. Aimed for most in the 5-10 cp range. No one was required to buy package deals or pre-fabbed tricks but many did for simplicity and at the very least the process served as examples of "what you can do" as well as "what to expect from the bad guys" to some extent. As GM i often designed foes with a quick pick from list approach.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword absolutely. In some versions of DND i loved the spear. it had set vs charge, it had throwing, it had length and did reasonable damage. Some were even one handed iirc so you could have the shield. Where they still got shafted was the "705 of all magic weapons are longswords" kind of thing that was in play in some earlier editions.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword In my experience these fell into play so rarely as to fit well within the little edge here and there that SFX can provide without causing significant imbalance. All the talk of needing concealable etc is fine but in my experience, the PLAYERS and their characters actively try and avoid such situations because the idea of fighting any serious and meaningful combat without "their stuff" (unarmored for instance, you likely dont disallow longswords or daggers so they have to be hidden yet allow plate armor or chain to be worn) was something they tried their best to find other solutions to. fantasy character tend to drop like flies when out of armor. As such usually one of three things happened when these circumstances were part of the session - 1. the character found a different solution that did not involve entering combat wiothout proper equipment and SERIOUSLY risking death. 2. the character sent ONLY the dagger guys and guys who had a chance while unequipped. The others were not part of the scenario. (in real play mode, this meant the scenario part where only one or two were involved was quickly resolved, as leaving half to three-quarters of your player idle for a prolonged combat was NOT FUN for too many people.) 3. the character's figured out a way to use magic to achieve the same effect as being equipped. the wizard might devise a spell to grant "armor" on the fly to unarmoured fighters and similarly pop in "battl;e axe and longsword" when needed, so then concealability was not an actual hindrance. But from a more genre specific approach - looking at Lord of the rings saga and the ten black company books by glen cook (i highly recommend them btw as well as his dread empire series) the number of times where concealability of weapons played a significant role was almost never. Those two references more or less bookend the genres we are trying to play in. similarly in CHAMPIONS when one character builds his 12d6 magic attack in a dagger and the other builds his in a staff, both take -1 oaf and pay 30 cp and duiring the course of play the few times concealability plays a role does not create significant imbalance. Now as said before, in a city based campaign where there are laws against certain weapons ior all weapons and where concealibility plays a serios role often, then i would expect different results, but again ones appropriate to the campaign. i would expect in such a setting that DAGGER and other small weapons would be the prefrred weapon and most to have skill levels etc or competency with such. So there the "well then everyone will choose dagger" plays to the setting, system syncs with setting, as opposed to me having to script setting/encounters to sync with the weapons chart.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword sigh.. again the disconnect. If battle axe guy came in from surprise as well or from an unexpected angle, he would get similar bonuses for circumstances, right? dagger guy doesn't get anything more than battle axe guy in these cuircumstances UNLESS HE SPENDS POINTS TO BUY IT - in which case axe guy has those points to spend on other advantages which again gives us an imbalance. Unless your SYSTEM provides a bonus to dagger guy for sneak attacks that is off his budget, the inherent disadvantage from "my weapon does less" is still present. Absolutely. i am NOT suggesting that dagger guy and axe guy buy the SAME EXACT combat skills, but rather that IF they spend the same amount on various combat advantages and axe guy gets more FREE STUFF because his axe is better than the dagger, then the notion of "they can spend point to raise capabilities" is then irrelevent to the discussion of weapon imbalance and the issues it raises. In my system dagger guy could buy his dagger as 1d6+1 autofire 5 shots to represent "multiple strikes" as how he gets to a 6dc attack while axe guy might just buy a straight 2d6k for his axe. both pay the same investment, both get similarly effective attacks, neither is disadvantaged overall in combat situations. Dagger guy would get better results against the lighter armored targets while axe guy does better against the heavier and as Gm i can easily mix within the genre the frequencies of those adversaries to suit. altyernatively, dagger guy could choose to just buy 2d6k and describe the sfx of his attack as "pinpoint strikes to vital or weak spots" as a reason for his significant damage. But since both are paying 30 ap for their 6dc attack, instead of one guy getting 1d6+1 free and the other guy getting 1/2d6 free, neither is playing catchup simply because his character's style is with dagger sfx. i dont want equality among weapons. i want equality among characters of equal investment into combat, regardless of in genre weapons chosen. i don't want SFX to be an advantage in something so common as co9mbat in action oriented fantasy to come from sfx. I dont want lightning bolt guy in supers to be at an advantage for the same points over firebolt guy in most of the combats. Similarly i dont want dagger guy to be at a disadvantage in most of the combats to axe guy with the same investment. Rmember, what i am suggesting is the character buys the attack representing not only "my base weapon damage" but also "my skill with it". he is buying "how good do i do with a dagger" and in the fantasy genre i am running both dagger guy and axe guy and spear guy and sword guy should all be able to be equally effective. in the lit their characters dont have a hierarchy where we know "sword guy is the best, then axe guy, then dagger guy mopping up the lessers.." You are getting really hung up on sfx. If my dagger wielding guy wants to do a net 6dc with his dagger and battle axe guy wants to do a net 6dc with his sword should they in hero system spend from their budget equal points for this or should dagger guy be forced to pay more, thus having less to spend elsewhere? so why doesn't axe guy do the sneak attack? he then gets higher base damage and also the bonuses for circumstance? if dagger guy sneak attack edge comes from points he spent, then whatever axe guy spent on is still keeping him on top. You have merely shifted the advantage away to another area. If dagger guy sneak attack bonus comes from non-budget system bonuses, then axe guy can get the same bonuses. But yes, as GM, as i stated much earlier, it is the combination of challenges and character traits that determines "was balance achieved in play". if as gm you script (some players might say railroad) it so that dagger guy gets more "advantageous situational modifiers" than axe guy does, essentially stacking the deck so as to offset the "free stuff imbalance" then you can equalize things in play. But then you are working as gm to counteract an imbalance provided by the system. I prefer to run systems which require me to not have to correct in play for their errors as much. if axe guy has a problem or feels shafted with dagger guy getting "as good as i am" when both spent the same investment on being "good at fighting", i would tell axe guy "thats a basic core principle of the system and also of the genre to an extent. On the other hand, ifaxe guy sees dagger guy getting more clearly scripted "advantageous situations" set up by circumstance, not by purchased skill use, than he gets, i think he is right to question "why are you showing him favoritism? I think in HERO if one character invests X points into "good at combat" (combo of weapons and skills and characteristics) as another character and that if i as GM give them equally a number of advantaged and disadvantaged situations of similar level of effect during the scenarios - not favoring one over the other - then they should more or less naturally fall out as equally effective. i think this especially true in the fantasy genre where I want "weapons and combat style" to be flavor and choice, not a "find the best" kind of puzzle. That simply doesn't happen with "free weapon imbalancess" where off budget one guy gets more than the other guy. I mean, what is so hard to understand here? if two character both get 150 pts of budget to spend and both spend say 50 of that on "combat stuff" or even 100 of that if you count characteristics, and i then go "OKAY, after budget you get 50 pts of combat related free stuff and you get only 25 pts of off budget combat related free stuff" then how in the world can i expect those to still remain balanced in combat terms?

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword In my fh games, there was never a problem with "needing" higher str. STR provides a great many advantages in a fantasy campaign even now without figured characteristics, so its a good investment - carrying capacity, hand-to-hand damage just for starters. Again we come to a MISUNDERSTANDING. I don't want a dagger to be as good as a broadsword or a battle axe. With my system i am not making it so that they are. i want a "well trained dagger fighter using a dagger or pair of daggers" to be as effective as "a well trained broadsword or battleaxe fighter using the battle axe or broadsword". I want the characters to be as effective regardless of weapon choice. The 4e weapons chart did not accomplish this, in our experience, for all its differentiation. letting dagger guy spend more of his personal budget on combat traits to reach the same effect level that broadsword guy gets for less doesn't do the trick either. Actually my point would be that characters should be equally effective for the same investment regardless of weapon chosen. That to me fits the fantasy genre where more often its not the actual weapon specs that are playing a role in weapon selection as much as "flavor" and "cukltural" stuff. My experience is that when FREE stuff is unequally effective in a primary facet of the campaign, that kicks the whole "budgeted character equally effective" in the testicles. So for fantasy games where combat is a major facet, this is a problem when free weapons are unbalanced, but like i said earlier if your were running a game mostly featuring courtly intrigue or where the larger weapons were outlawed and subject to penalties OFTEN then the change in campaign focus and freqent challenges shifts things a lot. Since my players were more interested in action-based fantasy not courtly intrigue fantasy, I was not able to offset the "combat advantage" with "concealability" advantages. and yes absolutely, the radical, totally looney notion i am suggesting is that "with my weapon i do 2d6k" should cost the character the same regardless of the actual shape of the weapon, effectively turning weapon choice into SFX, a matter of style or flavor or in this case often a cultural character defining property. I have played many rpgs over the years and i think i know of one or two which used that notion - pay for effectiveness not sfx - as one of their core principles. Maybe i can dig one off the shelf and let you know which one it was? :-) I remember it being quite good and detailed.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword NuSoardGraphite Ok i get all of that but where i fail to understand the importance is this - All these dagger guy options for upping the damage - dont they also apply to longsword guy and to battle axe guy etc? So if dagger guy and battle axe guy and longsword guy all spend the same points on similar levels and uses for their favored weapon, spend equally, you still wind up with dagger guy being as good as dagger guy can be while battle axe guy is doing more damage? his is especially true if weapon damage doubling rule is used cuz dagger guy hits his limit a lot sooner than vattleaxe guy does. So all the things you mention are available to everyone and so they don't affect one iota the balance or rather imbalance between those weapons. If dagger guy can do X to improve his dc/effectiveness by Y and battle axe guy can spend the same to imporve his dc/effectiveness to Y+Z (where Z is the better output of the axe) then the "X" option hasn't addressed the basic issue at all. Now, if you are saying you allow dagger guy to buy X and wont allow battkleaxe guy to also buy X, then you have addressed the "better battle axe" (in theory) BUT you have done so by docking the dagger guy the points needed to buy X. So battle AXE guy spends his points equal to X on other things such as more body, more stun, more dex etc and has simply shifted his advantage to those areas instead of "damage related issues". The only way allowing dagger guy to spend on the things you list will "solve" the "dagger isn't as good a weapon" is if you give him these for free, as compensationn for choosing a less effective weapon. In short, the character cannot spend himself into balance to offset imbalances provided by free equipment unless he is on a different budget or no budget at all. thats where i see the disconnect. My players understood it and gracitated away from the less effective free wepons to the fewer most efficient free weapons. If my goal was to create a campaign world where a few "best" weapons were ubiquitous in the hands of most intellgent warriors, that would be a great approach. but my goal was to emulate the fantasy genres we were familiar with where weapons were not identifed and chose for "best" but rather were more cultural flavor. The axe is commonly a dwarven weapon (dwarves had a skill level with axes in their purchased template.) Elves used lots of bows and longsword. Gnomes used picks. some human tribes used spears and staves cuz they were cheap and easy to make (less metal fit their resources.) the only time i deliberately wanted to introduce "clearly the better" weapons was when it was a plot element - one side had bronze weapons and armor while the others had iron/steel but that was a known campaign element from the get go, not a matter of an imbalanced weapon list of stats. like the op i find a "clearly better weapon" taken from a weapon list to be a negative thing. we differ in that i found the 4e chart to be sufficiently that way to grossly impact player choices - giving me not the "statement about my character" flavor at all but rather a"best weapon" feel. Back to a summary of my "i dont get how this solves anything" - 1 if dagger guy and battle axe guy and longsword guy can all spend their cp equally on these power ups, then how is the imbalance affected at all to help bring dagger guy competitive? I see it can actually work against him if "double base" limits are in play. 2 If dagger guy is allowed to SPEND to buy these power ups and the others aren't doesn't this just allow the others more points to spend on other advantages, just shifting where their "weapons edge" pays off and not eliminating or equalizing it at all? thanks

Re: Confused about Combined Attack sound byte first... Combined attack = multiple powers used as one attack multiple attack = one attack used multiple times. i THINK the difference is a combined attack is usibng two separate fully purchased attack powers at the same time, usually with a single attack roll but that may just be common. A multiple attack uses the SAME single attack power more than once. For example expensive guy bought a 12d6 Eb and a 4d6 rka for 120 pts, 60 each. he can fire both at a target as a single attack in one phase, no problem, as a combined attack. he suffers little or no penalties. Cheapo guy bought just the 4d6 rka laser for 60 pts and can fire it twice at a target making a spearate attack roll for each but it invokes the multiple attack penalties to action length and dcv or whatever. i THINk this is correct but i did not take the time to reread the text. In 5e the main difference was what passed then as combined attack was two or more fully bought attack powers while SWEEP used one power multiple times.

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear well, in many historical references from the days of swords, it seemed not uncommon at all for men to walk around with their swords at their side, much like in the "westerns" men seem to be carrying guns almost all the time. In these genres - historical/fantasy/western - they share a sort of "frontier justice" theme where it is not at all out of sorts for two men to "settle their differences" with weapons or to have "defend yourself" be the norm as opposed to the modern worlds "call the cops". So likening someone walking around with a sword in fantasy to someone carrying an M16 down main street today seems a bit off. Now as for plate mail and such, for that there is simply a fairly typical "lets ignore how uncomfortable this stuff is" aspect in most fantasy rpgs when compared to historical references. However, thats not necessarily out of sorts with the genre either depending on your sources. So to me it depends on what you are trying to portray - realistic or cinematic or various sources - and what you want to focus on. mant gamers see fantasy rpgs as "fights" and "monster hunts" and so want to "have my stuff" more than not. This might be a different choice if the game were focusing on courtly intrigue. So its all relative to your desired source. i recall some Arthurian movies where the knights only seemed out of full plate when taking liberties with maidens. Some where even that didn't get them out of armor. I recall others where "getting geared up" was only done for battle - but swords were frequently carried.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword Again in reference to the repeated quote from bigbywolfe, I thought it was clear that the reference to no one playing dagger guy was in reference to my run FH games where i used the 4e charts as in the books. and to your point, i obviously dont have a problem with someone taking deadly blow or the equivalent either, but to take "i like shortsword" guy and make him blow a noticeable part of his budget on bringing that weapon up to competitive when compared to "longsword guy" runs contrary to my goal of not penalizing him for chosing the shortsword in the first place. Saying "yeah you can get a shortsword and be just as competitive as the guy with the longsword but your pc will be built on 5 pts less than the longsword guy" isn't getting me where I want the game to be, isn't fostering "because i like it" decisions. Concealability differences between a longsword and a shortsword certainly play a role, but in most of my fantasy games and in most fantasy references i have, a lot less than combat, so i rarely see that as evening out. Different campaigns will of course reach different conclusions. A city based campaign where larger weapons are forbidden will likely see a lot more dagger based players, for instance, as long as most action takes place within those restrictions. But by the same token such campaign restrictions serve even more than efficiency to limit the weapons selection to a few choice weapons. You will see almost no greatsword or longsword or battle axe characters chosen if even carrying them would carry a likelihood of arrest or worse, for instance.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword Well it really depends on two things - do the mechanics achieve the goal in fact and of course what other goals are sacrificed. In most of my fantasy reading/watching - and that of my players - the choice of weapons was usually not based on such tactical decision but along stylistic merits. Dwarves were differentiated by using axes, elves by using bows and thin swords or whatever appropriate for the specific series. In most of these stories/movies there were not a few "best weapons" that most everyone used regardless of culture and race. On the other hand, most every attempt at creating "balanced" but "realistic" weapons specs seem to have resulted in the latter - a few best weapons most everyone uses. Maces and hammers in hero tend to be written up as either just straight HKA or as ones with +1 stun mukltiplier - making them LESS LIKELY to break bones as you describe if they use the stun multiplier - as the same "sized" sword. So thats one failed attempt at achieveing the "differentiation". Wanna break bones thru armor? use an axe instead. Pick design to punch thru armor? At 30 ap "size" for easy math using the 4e tables a 1d6+1 pick with Ap and a 15 str does 7 body vs high end armours of 8 getting 3 body thru (dont have charts in front of me so i am ignoring str min which should be mostly the sqame for two 30 ap weapons) while a 2d6K axe averages with the same 15 strength 10.5 body avg vs the same 8 getting 2.5 thru. Against 6 armor or less, the axe does more body. So, IF your campaign's common foes are decked out in plate armor, you achieve the result of "better thru armor" but if they are in say CHAIN MAIl or less, the better body damage producer is the axe again. Naturally as different tables are introduced these can change. the 4e tables never quite managed to do more than "pretend" to achieve differentiation in my experience, and that of my players, but then, the typical adversary was not decked out in plate and my guys were good at math so... yes, some players WILL CHOOSE weapons ignoring the math and ignoring the efficiency, absolutely - and as Gm i want to promote that - and putting in place a system that SCREWS THOSE PLAYERS by making their copncept choice less efficient in practice is a poor GMing decision in my experience. Its not that they cannot make these choices, they can, its whether or not i want to give them a fair shake in a game/genre which focuses quite a bit on combat. If my goal is to promote people making concept based style like genre favoring choices, then i am silly to put into place a sub-system which favors the opposite as clearly as the faux-realism weapon differentiation does. the 4e chart and most other fantasy weapons tables attempt to create weapons that are both differentiated and balanced, so as to enable the "freedom to choose" stylistic decisions without being screwed over in terms of efficiency in actual play. its easy to create differentiated weapons, but if in play they are not balanced, then you fail to achieve the diversity more often than not, well, among PC choices at least where players have some form of budget to consider. Again as a guy who wants my players to feel free to choose for style and flavor and for concept, I don't want to turn around and implement a weapons chart that says "if you don't minmax and choose these few "best" weapons, you will pay for the decision in most combats" in a co0mbat oriented genre. That seems to be punishing the guys doing what i prefer and woefully inconsistent. yes absolutely they can both wield the same or similar weapons and have different write ups. take dagger master guy... one guy can be "my 2d6k is pinpoint accuracy - i hit vital spots causing more damage than say a commoner would" another can say "my 1d6+1 autofire represents a lot of quick strikes, like maybe 3-4 represented by a single attack roll." same weapon, different concepts, different write ups. to me, attack damage is as much (actually MORE) "how you strike" and "where you hit" than the shape of what you hit with. A 50 cal rifle can graze and a derringer can kill and a pencil can kill. (and no the hit location tables dont handle this sufficiently in my experience in hero.) and therein lies a fundamental problem. dagger guy can PAY FOR out of his limited character budget the ability to bring the dagger to his liking, while mr two handed sword or my longsword dont have such expenditures since they chose a more efficient and free weapon. Both pay for ocv and such but the "specialist" winds up sacrificing to meet his concept. Not a "style/concept friendly" solution, as i observe abiove, seeming to punish the guys doing decisions i want. yes it is easy, well relatively, and the guy with the efficient weapon can do so too, just as easily and syill be more efficient. or he can leave his wepon to handle it and spend those points on other useful stuff. letting those who chose for style pay extra points to bring their style up to competitive isn't a reasonable way to promote style based decisions on a budget devised game.. absolutely! It really comes down to what you goals are and how well the systems and sub-systems foster and promote those goals.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword Wonderfully selective quoting there. the actual statement was... "As for the 4e table - when i ran 3-4 fantasy hero campaigns using that table, the weapons chosen were pretty limited. No one ever decided to be a "dagger master" guy (or a pick guy for that matter) even though roguish dagger guys are not uncommon. Their choices were guided by campaign math which led to a few swords and axes fitting the proper combo of "efficiency" regarding str min and ocv and damage done. There were "clearly better than other" weapons, a few at least, judging by actual play selection against the typical examples of npcs and adversaries." I thought i was being as clear as possible that i was referring to IN MY 3-4 campaigns and the choices made by players in those games using that specific table. Thats why i could make such a definitive statement. I have actual knowledge of what was chosen during those games. yes I know you did not specifically reference other weapons tables, but since that restriction appeared right after the restriction about it being in the campaigns i run, i would be foolish to assume you skipped one restriction but mean to keep the other. that would be very strangley selective reading, right? I no more meant it as a definitive statement about other people's campaigns than i meant it about games using other weapons tables.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword i think i am being unclear. I am NOT talking about buying "an attack with a specific weapon" as a character trait, like say a sword OAF would be bought in a superhero game. I am saying you buy "when i attack with WEAPONS" I do this amount of damage and have this ocv bonus" So whether your fighter is using a battle axe or a dagger or a spear he gets the same net result in terms of damage and ocv - in GENERAl - of course a character could buy at a discount rate "this damage only applies with swords" or "this damage only applies with great swords' etc. As for magic weapons, they would be "written up" as "what extra benefits do they apply" so you dont have to worry about costing up the base "character based" damage just the extra so a +1 sword might be written up as +1DC and +1 OCV for 10 cp baseline - if you worry about costs. When wielded by a character whose weapon skill says +5 ocv and 1d6 damage then he would get +6 ocv and 1d6+1 damage. So you write up the additions, not the basic stuff already paid for when doing special weapons. As for "what do i buy?" thats a campaign specific set of benchmarks. Only difference is instead of the gm setting "daggers do 1d6-1 and longswords do 1d6+1" he is setting up "a typical commoner does 1d6-1 with weapons, a typical rogue does 1d6, a typical soldier does 1d6+1 etc" and you decide from whatever benchmarks he sets what your character concept calls for. basically, a person can be killed with a pencil if it is driven with strength and precision to the right spot, but not if the pencil is statted at 1 pip rka. As for the 4e table - when i ran 3-4 fantasy hero campaigns using that table, the weapons chosen were pretty limited. No one ever decided to be a "dagger master" guy (or a pick guy for that matter) even though roguish dagger guys are not uncommon. Their choices were guided by campaign math which led to a few swords and axes fitting the proper combo of "efficiency" regarding str min and ocv and damage done. There were "clearly better than other" weapons, a few at least, judging by actual play selection against the typical examples of npcs and adversaries. So for me it failed utterly at the goal of "weapon choice is a matter of style and concept, not maximizi9ng stats from a preset list" the 5e and 6e charts which dropped some of the differences might be worse, dont know, never used them. But i think we have different goals or maybe the same goals but different priorities. I want it so that if you think gnomes use picks you choose picks and dont even have to worry about whether this chart or that chart makes picks better than swords. so different preferences are not surprising.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword interesting! do you also feel that things like OCV (a part of the weapons stats you seem to like from 4e) should also not be bought as character traits? or would it be correct to say that you are fine with OCV bonus being either a weapon trait or a purchased character trait or both but having damage be anything but a weapon trait is not to your liking? FWIW - making fighters pay for "weapon skill" in the form of buying the damage they do with weapons helps the usual HERO balance/cost issues between fighters and mages quite a bit. Me - i dont have a problem with fighters buying ocv that applies with weapons and i dont have a problem with them buying dc with weapons either.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword

Re: damage negation v. damage reduction thats true but thats really a misuse of dr. If you have "typical defenses" buying dr is a bad investment. If your gm would allow you to spend an additional 30 pts on resistant energy defense on TOP OF your normal level defenses, buy an additional 20 defense. Where dr works better, is more cost effective, is when combine with low defenses, where you let 40 damage thru and then reduce it by 20 by spending 30 pts on resistant dr thats where you break even with typical defenses. I often used this with "tough guy" builds where a strong character had only 6-10 defense but DR to reduce it by half. At 6 defense vs a 42 stun attack (12d6 avg) he lets 36 past defenses and cuts that to a very manageable 18 stun loss, the same bleed thru as a 24 def character would get. (body loss is still an issue tho and some type of regen or high body score is usually good. The trade off there is "the dr guy gets some body damage but the dr guy is relatively safe from "lucky shot" causing stun due to high damage, since its 2-1 for him. At 25 con the 24 def guy is stunned by an attack only 8 above average - 50 stun - but the dr guy starts getting stunned at 56 stun hits or thereabout.

Re: (Equipment) Axe vs. Sword Well i must confess that i am more usually of a mind set for fantasy weapons for "weapon qualities" to be practically non-existent. In most fantasy lit i have read/watched, the choice of weapon is a style thing. Gimli did not weildand axe because it did more damage than a sword. if he had used a pick it wouldn't have been for armor piercing purposes but rather because "dwarves do digging and it doubles as a tool" kind of thing. You don't often see in fantasy lit the hero's choice of weapon spotlighted as "well thats a poor choice in this circumstance" and very rarely see "its a great choice here". So all the wonderful attempts to created "balanced" weapons lists (so that if you want an axe or a spear you dont feel "shafted" or look at the OP here who sees swords as shafted to me seems to miss the boat. First, they rarely actually succeed at creating truely balanced "weapons lists". Whether +1 ocv for swords is balanced against +1 DC for axes is really more determined by "the opposition stats" than those minor shifts. in an "against the giants" campaign, the large slow high body enemies make axes the better choice, while in the 'invasion of the cat people, the higher dcv lower body catfolk make the +1 ocv more useful. To me the "better" approach, not the only approach but one thats simpler and more direct to the goal of "you can choose whatever weapon fits you concept and not be "shafted"" goal is to have weapon "results" be more linked to CHARACTER than to WEAPON. if your professional fighter type uses daggers, his 2d6K damage is based off "quick strikes to vital spots" while if you chose GREAT SWORD" then its more "powerful blow". in a classed system you could have "weapon damage" be a function of class - not weapon. Your "fighter" does d12 on a hit whether he weilds axes or short swords or great swords or spears or daggers. Your thief weilds all of the same doing D8. Your wizard does d4s. make how effective your strike is a factor of "skill" as opposed to "shape of the metal". In a point buy have each chyaracter purchase their "weapon damage/ocv" and then have them apply them to whatever weapons they are skilled with. or hey, work hard at creating a "balanced set of weapons with each class being unique" and then also "select challenges in your campaign so that they equally reward those advantages and penalize those disadvantages for all weapon types" and accomplish the same results.

Re: Bad character design or broken rules ? Ok in "some other systems" they use a mechanic called plot points or hero points for things like "i use my power rarely to do this tricky thing" or "yes i have this ability but it is rarely useful" kind of mechanics. it allows a broad span of "i can do lots of stuff that rarely comes into play." without letting it be too much of an open door for abuse - if you are a Gm worried about such. HERO technically doesn't have such a mechanic in normal play - might be in the apg in some form - and i have used "expendable luck dice in the past for similar. But what HERO does have is a thing called POWER SKILL. power skill in theory allows you to fan your firebolt rka into an AOE if you make the skill roll for that rare "i really need an aoe" or it allows you to generate smoke cloud from same firebolt even tho you haven't paid for it. Now what you MIGHT want to consider doing is allowing in your supers game a "POWER SKILL: Skills " kind of thing to allow certain non-combat skills to be called up on demand even tho they were not bought. Another alternative is a VPP skills Another alternative is simply reducing costs of skills you deem "not that often important" to 1 cp or even 0 cp. Another alternative would be a skills multipower. But the long and short of it is - we can provide a gazillion ways to reduce skill costs but none of us can tell you which is RIGHT COST for your campaign.

Re: Bad character design or broken rules ? Well if you as Gm think skills are not appropriate for the campaign as purchases, "skills are for heroes not supers", then set the cost of those skills to 0 for your campaign. look, you say that both combat and investigation will be important but then list a lot of movement skills as apparently a "why buy?". YOU KNOW WHAT YOU PLAN TO DO better than any of us could. You are the guy with the knowledge needed to set accurate costs. I have no earthly idea how often "detective and bugging will play as significant a role as +1 DC will in YOUR UPCOMING CAMPAIGN. How can i advise you on what those costs should be, on how to give them a discount and how much of a discount it should be? Does anyone on this board other than you have a clue how often 'investigation skills" will be important in your game as opposed to movement skills as opposed to languages? TONGUES power - read/write/speak all? How often will that come up as needed in play? In the vast majority of supers comix i read, it hardly ever did. if it did it was a special plot device for that story not a common feature. I tend to charge little at all for languages in such supers games myself. i allow them as background flavor skills - pick the ones appropriate to your character. Vehicles for movement purposes - i tend to allow it as megascale movement at appropriate speeds with a "focus vehicle" lim on the cost. They pay less than "the flyer" because they usually have to go get to the ehicle and cannot just take off at the drop of a hat and can be shot down etc. Now if they want a tactical effective vehicle that they will frequently use in combat, then we get into vehicle rules. The short answer to all of your questions are - YOU AS GM know how much you will be emphasizing various traits and should set cost accordingly. Allow things that wont play a significant rolle as flavor for free or for really cheap, but with the understanding that its just gonna be for flavor not important to success/fail etc. You set the costs. You choose the challenges. keep them in sync and its good. Get them out of whack and it can cause trouble. But neither I. nor anyone on this board, nor the original designers who set costs years ago have any clue what you specific campaign balances will be.

Re: Hero: Teleport Only often with teleporting guys i give them an NND attack based on teleporting next to someone with your hand inside them, akin to the visions phase-hand-reach-in-solidify attack. I usually define its counter as a force field. that gives the teleporter an effective attack - even 3-4d6 NND will be felt in a supers game without breaking concept overmuch. i also have built a similar "ranged" version based on "teleporting objects into the other guy" suck as taking a pen and teleporting it inside someone. This could be as lethal as your sfx demand. Sometime i ruled objects "break down" when teleporting into other objects releasing energy that hurts (SFX for the NND) and other times i let them be "solidified" and designed it as an RKA NND does body for more lethal games. you can look at what hero standardly defines as happening when you misteleport into another object for guidelines and options.

Re: Bad character design or broken rules ? I think this is a perception issue and a campaign one. The perception issue is straightforward - if your measruing stick is POWER LEVEL (assumption you mean COMBAT POWER LEVEL) and you compare one char with a lot of non-combat points with one with a lot of combat points spent - then they ratio of points to power level wont gibe. Just like if one guy spends $60k on a large truck and another guy spends $60k on a sportscar in real life and you measure them by HAULING CAPACITY then looking at "money spent vs hauling capacity" it looks like one guy got gyped big time. In fact, each paid different points to be good in different areas. Now as a GM if you run your game where lots of batman's skills are NEEDED, then Supes wont seem too powerful. By contrast if most of your in-game challenges are of the combat variety, straight forward bash-em-ups, then supes will seem head and shoulders above the batman who spent lotsa points on skills not relevent to your SELECTED challenges. The key is this - YOUR CHOSEN CHALLENGES applied in your campaign, the things your PCs have to overcome, are what either makes the points right or makes them wrong for your game and your characters. If i were going to run a bash-em-up supers game, one which only rarely featured the esoteric skills the batman lists - then i would tell the players beforehand "dont spend a lot on non-com skills. Just write them down as 0 pt flavor stuff." If you as GM charge a player 3 cp for "BUGGING 14-" and charge another character 3 cp for "+1 OCV with my three favorite attacks" then you as Gm are telling them "i will select challenges that will make these traits play out as equally useful." If later on as the campaign progresses you don't follow thru on that promise, thats on you.

Re: Mullings Over Magic In the Fh campaigns i ran i did the following Each "school of magic" represented a style and each style had a pre-defined set of limitations that applied to every spell. Wizardry -gryphon school - had extra time and concentration and foci but were the safe cautious spell academics sorcery - phoenix school - used side effects and extra end - represeenting the RAW TALENT less training more wild off the cuff style of magic. Thaumaturgy - peacock school -used a big OAF lim - representing mages who invested their power into a device, well made, personal device liie swords or staves as a control rod kind of thing. etc... all required skill roll Then for buying magic all mages had a MULTIPOWER and each spell was a slot in the Mp. The big up front costs was the MP pool which limits both the size of any single spell and how many spells that can be run at once. Being able to cast small spells is cheap, to cast big spells not so much. The SCHOOL LIMS and skill roll lims apply to this pool cost but other "spell sopecific" lims do not. The usual total lim value for a pool was -1.5 (skill roll plus -1 in schools lims) then each spell was a typical Mp slot with the same lims as well as any specific to the spell. So any given spell was only a couple points. But the POOL cost was big and up front. That seemed to balance fine against warriors without any real shenanigans like "just cut the price down" but again, whatever you do for spells, also encourage by npc examples, "warrior tricks" and "rogue dirty fighting" where the non-magic users can also buy "powers" using similar costing schemes. Also encourage racial traits like venom spitting for lizard folk or "stone telling" for dwarves or super tracking (postcognition) for hunters and the like.

Re: Regeneration Costs Actually it was from comparing cost for NCM using the normal doublings vs using megascale. They have similar drawbacks, though overtime people started adding in odd reads to make megascale a little worse. The cost for NYC to CA in an hour varies quite a bit if you use megascale on a low ap fly than if you buy moderate fly with doublings, Again same type of math error - acquire magnitude by either adding ap or by multiplying low ap and net result is skewed schemes or contrived differences. I always used to like the "megascale is inaccurate by the size of the hex" which meant often you could miss the city and i wondered "what comic book movements are they emulating with this unusual interpretation?"

Re: Regeneration Costs This math error is not all that uncommon in hero. The basic issue is this: if the "same thing" can be bought two different ways - one involving additive costs and the other involving multiplicative costs, then you are going to get skews What regen is is "body over time". thats what you are paying for mostly. One can get X body over Y time by either paying a lot up front and limiting the time or buy just buying less but over a faster time. there have been similar issues in the past with movement powers. But for all the fretting over inconsistency, the point to me is moot. Thats because, while ALL hero traits actually have subjective to campaign costs and the notion of "fixed costs" is more illusion than substabce, REGEN is one of those powers thats even more "campaign subjective". In many types of supers campaigns, taking body is rare and so regen is more flavor than power. It should be cheap there since it is hardly game affecting. In many types of fantasy games, taking body is common and healing may be infrequent and so regen can play a huge role and should be more expensive. My suggestion would be - for campaign consistency - set out in house rules how to buy regen so everyone does it the same way. if you want "per hour" rule that they have to buy only 1 body regen and bump the time increment. or however you think is fair. At the same time, sit down and evaluate the actual value in game of regen for your specific campaign and set the price accordingly. for me, i tend to say "if you are going to speed up the recovery, only buy 1 body".

Re: Free Character Defining Skills I also tend to rob Ars magic for passions. i really liked their idea and find that "lateral bonuses" - a bonus which applies to anything but only in certain circumstances, to be very good for definition mechanically. PASSIONATE ABOUT CARS applying to driving skill, to ks cars, to appraising cars and to fixing cars or even to shooting a car to cause it to break down - a "well placed shot" kind of deal. In many cases though i would tend to represent this with a skill level or an overall level with appropriate valued lims to reflect the frequency of use. useless fluff is free but infrequently useful definiton should simply be cheap.