tesuji

Re: Free Character Defining Skills I am absolutely of the impression that skills which wont matter are free. However a number of the examples listed above would be IMO things like "+1 with social skills -X only for ominous stare kind of things. if it actually does draw attention to you or influence others, HERo does represent it easily enough with limited PRE or skill levels. So yeah the premise is correct but there is a fine line between cheap small bonus which can be and IMo should be pointed and truly "just for flavor no effect" traits. and i wouldn't call many of them skills.

Re: This looks legal but wrong to me Huh? start with IN MY GAME this would be great for a discus able to be thrown into the next hex. STR does not have range by default nothing bought in this power gives it range beyond reach. to me you would need some advantage to make this ranged. range based on strength? sure. the limitation OIF or the limitation only for throwing does not give this power the ability to affect things beyond reach, any more than the limitation "only to disintigrate target completely" give a 1 pip HKA the innate ability to vaporize any target or a force field "only to totally stop an attack" automatically gets to stop any attack completely even if its more than the def.

Re: Intelligent weapons and items a typical "intelligent sword" - ie one with its own mind and powers it can activate or knowledge it can dispense - but which are not necessarily useable on demand by the weilder, is built as an Ai/Computer with the various powers and abilities constructed normally, or with "useable by other" is both user and sword can activate it. as an Ai the sword gets speed, dex, ego, int personality etc. It can also have disadvantages. of course, the backup answer to any "how do you..." can be "dont just wing it" but...

Re: Power Skill with No Power Actually i would say it is very definitely in BETWEEN the two cases. RE computers without followers - if we assume a modern setting computers are ubiquitous and PCs are not required to purchase computer followers in order to have computers. At least, i have never seen a modern supers game where the gm required pcs to buy "my normal dell pc on my kitchen table" with cp. So the lack of pirchase of a computer follower has very little if any impact on "can i use the computer skill in this game - how often? for how much effect? Those two issues - how often and how much effect are what drives cost and defines usefulness. So to me this 'power skil, without buying powers to use it on" is not much at all like buying computer skill and not buying a computer follower. consider for example - power skill brick tricks, power skill mutant powers, power skill speedster tricks, powr skill force fields etc etc. I have seen all of these in actual play. In every case i have ever seen POWER SKILL bought 100% of the actual in game uses were on powers of the appropriate type the PC purchased. if i take away those powers, the power skill becomes useless or so close to useless that the PC should not be charged for the power skill. While speedsters and bricks and other mutants might well exist in the campaign world, these power skills do not give the PC the ability to "use" the other characters' powers. Would you allow power skill jedi tricks to allow a character to take over or use another jedi's powers? What about power skill mental powers allowing my pc to USE another mentalists mental powers? See its not about "does this exist in the setting" but rather is about "within the setting are their available frequently enough to matter external sources of these powers that the character CAN USE THE POWERS OF without actually buying the power?" For MOST power skills i have seen in play - brick tricks, mental powers, mutant powers force fields etc - the answer to that question is NO, resoundingly so. This makes those numerous cases much more similar to "in this setting it doesn't exist" since for the power skill purposes existing but unusable is not noticably different from "not existing. The two cases of power skill that I have seen in settings where there were, with frequency worth mentioning, available sources of powers available for use by those who did not buy the powers are gadgeteering in a modern or scifi setting and magic in a fantasy setting. in those two cases, there were numerous "universal foci" scattered around in the setting that the PCs would encounter and have access to even though they did not buy the powers. In those cases, whether the PC buys powers is not a limiters on his having the ability to use the powers. An obvious example is the rogues "use magic device" from DND. So in those types of settings, it IS reasonable, as i stated above, for a pc to have power skill but no actual powers. he would pay for the power skill normally and use it on the available 'free of charge" foci. But the discussion is not limited to those two cases. SUMMARY: As GM, if there are significant examples of "don't have to pay to use" powers of the given type in the setting - magic items in fantasy, technology in modern and other examples can perhaps be found like say a setting where there are special stones that enhance mental abilities and allow the user some mental powers (mental powers bought as universal foci) so that the character can find sufficient use opportunities of his powers skill, I would allow it to be purchased. - By the same token, if there are not such example in number and frequency or if the general nature of the specific power skill makes it more akin to "using my stuff" like say brick tricks or force field powers or the like - then i would not allow the purchase of power skill nor spend time redefining the skill entirely in order to allow the character to purchase it. if it fits concept - formerly a mentaliost who got a mental lobotomy as punishment or wizard stripped of magic - then i would allow the skill but not as a purchase but as a free skill, a background element that like hair color will provide no benefit (or so little benefit so rarely) that it is worth no points. like hair color, it can play a role "Devil ray has a thing for redheads so you get a bonus on your seduction roll." but not often enough and not beneficial enough to make it worth purchasing. i don't require "hair color red: +1 with seduction rolls -1/2 only useful if the target has a thing for redheads" net cost 1 cp and so i won't require "brick tricks power skill 3 cp" for a character with no brick tricks and no superstrength that would make them useful. if you want a skill which enables you to "know all about this kind of thing and maybe use it to predict uses or figure out stuff related to this type of thing" like say "the enemy brick starts a full phase baction which..." "hmm... looks like he is winding up for a super strength concussion blast better cover my ears" then buy a knowledge skill "brick tricks". in my fantasy game, power skill magic gives you the ability and expertise to work with and manipulate the magic abilites you have. To figure out other people's magics, you buy KS magic and so forth.

Re: Changing Speed mid-turn a system i used with some success in one of my last hero games, post 5e was... speed changes happen at end of turn -post-12 if your speed changes in mid turn, you continue to act on segments based on your normal speed BUT... you lose/gain actions based on the changes as soon as possible Example speed 5 character moves on 3,5, 8, 10, 12 he is hit on 6 by a speed boost that raises him to speed 7. on segment 7 he gains a free phase, the phase from his boost. then he continues for the rest of the turn at speed 5 - going on 8-10-12. at post-12 he switches to speed 7 and thats his NORMAL SPEED for next turn. same guy is hit by a speed drain that lowers him from 5 to 3 on segment 6 He continues going on speed 5 phases. Segment 8, he loses action for one of his speed drops. segment 10 he loses the second phase segment 12 he goes next turn his "normal speed" is 3. gets rid of tracking "have both speeds moved?" or "do both speeds have a double up segment?" and provides immediate benefit from the changes. worked simpler. I think the game was fh so drains were not uncommon.

Re: Power Skill with No Power Well for my money, renaming a skill AND changing what it is defined as doing is not another use for the skill but rather a space saving means by which HERo system core book doesn't need a separate skill list for each genre. i mean, after you change bugging to eavesdropping in name, and change the 'what does this skill do" description/definition what is there from the original skill? the cost scheme? So eavesdropping is as much like bugging as it is like demolitions or persuasion - it has the same cost scheme but all else is different. Similar with changing computers to automatonification. imo or are you saying that for instance a fantasy wizard with automatonification if transported in your game to modern times could roll automatonizationification to write window.net code? or the fantasy rogue could similarly whip up and use modern surveillance gear? i wouldn't but then again i wouldn't let a guy take power skill solo, barring the case of very common sfx and prevalent items for him to use it on. if he wanted it anyway, i give it for free. When it becomes useful enough to warrant points - he buys/finds powers useful with the skill, he pays for the skill.

Re: Spells As Skills Exactly!!! Thats the p[oint of tricks. Without a "trick" paid for, you go through more mundane normal ways to do things. usually this involves a series of actions. Any brick can use an action to pick up a metal girder, then spend more actions to bend it and wrap it probably around a relatively unresisting foe. A brick who bought a strength trick for entangle usually with oif "opportunity terrain" or somesuch does it as more or less a single action, maybe with something like full phase you use tricks to represent tricks and talents which are better than the norm, more than what anybody with a rope could do. This is in response to GA as well. ANYBODY with a rope more or less can tie someone up. Not everyone with a rope can tie up someone in the middle of a fight quickly. IMX it is not bringing in superheroic "pay for anything" to have someone in a heroic game have to pay for "being a sushimi rope master i can use this rope to quickly bind someone even in combat". Now maybe in your games anyone can do this, but in my games if Joe the librarian had a rope and had a thug with a club trying to whack him, i would not let joe spend one action and wind up with an "entangled thug. on the other hand, in certain styles of heroic games, I would have no problem allowing a "rope master" to do that at all - provided he bought the trick as an entangle. In this case, the rope can indeed allow someone to tie someone up but it is the character (rope master) who brings the ability to do so quickly and in combat against a resisting foe. should have said something likwe girder or light pole.

Re: Spells As Skills smoke and mirrors. I can think of a case where a 3 pt computer skill is worth more in nplay than 30/30 force field, flight 30" and 12d6 fireball... all combined. thats not an argument that they should cost the same or even similar or that same costing would promote as opposed to derail balance. HERO seems to think a greatsword is more valuable than a dagger. I see no reason to disagree with that even though i can concoct circunstances where the reverse is true. Actually IMX the discrepancy between weapons bought with focus lims and such tend to balance out with martial maneuvers. When you further reduce the weapons, armor, shields costs to familiarity level with no increased limitations, thats where the balancing issues creep in. I mean you wouldn't let someone in a superhero game get his weapons and armor for free, right? You would charge him for focus reduced powers etc... and the MA pays the same prices in either heroic or superheroic. In supers game - fighter pays 15 cp for 2d6 HKA sword (or less if he applies various lims) and the martial artist pays x for martial arts maneuvers. In heroic game - the fighter pays a couple points of familiarity for the same sword and the martial artist pays the same X he paid above for the same maneuvers. You do see a discrepancy there, right? Thats where I am coming from. Its very similar, same root cause in fact, as the whole "pay for spells" issue, just at a lesser scale. Not sure where you get this notion. the flash eye gouge i mentioned was 6d6 and had both the requirement of being no range, requires a skill roll and then a to-hit roll. the mage's ability would presumably have a skill rool requirement, no real need for no range, and likely some spelly requirements like gestures and inc and of course require a to hit roll but this hardly seems like such a significant chance of failure to warrant being priced along familiarity lines while the other costs 15 cp. As for the class distinction thing - the eye gouge thingy seems apropos for a streetfighter and the dazzle seems apropos for a mage so i dont see why one should be priced so high and the other not. Again, how many times do i have to defend this - i DONT object to the system and it bringing the magery costs in line with the fighter costs. What I object to is leaving all other effects that don't get the words EQUIP or SPELLplaced in their SFX priced at a "pay for effect" basis. For the exact same reasons people thing paying full price for spells in a heroic equip game is wrong, i think paying full price for "talents or maneuvers or special tricks is equally wrong. What I would want in a "price break mechanic" for these is to be able to use it for all such "pay for effect" items, regardless of what "descriptor" gets placed in their sfx fluff. Again, i am not talking as much about MARTIAL ARTS maneuver though IMX they seem a little pricey compared to free equip and familiarities - compare the copsts between MA and weapons in superheroic and heroic and i think you will see a stark difference. But rather about what in a superheroic game would be represented by "tricks" or "dirty fighting" etc. in his first post the example was fireball 6d6 aoe. in his first post he mentioned familiarities or skills as pricing. I am assuming the "cost" of a spell drops dopwn to between 1-3 pts at most. IMX 99% of the time, he doesn't. its just not worth it. i have never charged a player cp from his character to make him or his gear a story element. have you? how does that work? "If you build your character on half the points everybody else does i will write into the campaign a story role for your PC?" IMX given the choice between paying familiarity costs or even skill costs for spells and paying effect based price, they wouldn't. In my games, my players sort of expect me to make their characters and their traits relevent parts of the story for free. i never thought of charging them for it. "If you use all your points, you wont be as important as the others?" nah not for me. you keep talking about how restricted the cheaper spell wil be as if that balances out the cost difference. ok lets try this again... I AM a fan of the system. I think its a great approach to take "things paid for at effect based cost" and apply similar cost structure savings to them as get applied in heroic equipment games. I like it a lot. Since no one seems to undertsnad that lets use a chart... In SUPERHEROIC GAME GEAR is paid for at effect based cost SPELLS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COSt TRICKS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COST EVERYTHING else is paid for at EFFECT BASED cost systematically some sense of fairness in pricing is attained by having everything paid for by the same mechanism. In a STANDARD heroic game GEAR is paid for at FREE must buy familiarities cost - greatly reduced by comparison SPELLS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COSt TRICKS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COST EVERYTHING else is paid for at EFFECT BASED cost systematically a problematic imbalance is created. In SOME heroic games GEAR is paid for at FREE must buy familiarities cost - greatly reduced by comparison SPELLS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COSt with a /3 or /5 adjustment in cost TRICKS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COST EVERYTHING else is paid for at EFFECT BASED cost systematically a problematic imbalance is created While spells are adjusted to be more in line with gear the rest of the realm of stuff paid for is still left out in the cold. In this style of game GEAR is paid for at FREE must buy familiarities cost - greatly reduced by comparison SPELLS are FREE with buy familiarities/skills TRICKS are paid for at EFFECT BASED COST EVERYTHING else is paid for at EFFECT BASED cost systematically a problematic imbalance is created Same basic effect as the /3 and /5, bring spells in line with gear but the rest left out. I dont see being able to write GEAR or SPELL bnext to something as justification balance wise for it being given a gross discount. What I am asking about would be a system where EVERYTHING else is paid for using the same FREE but buy skills and familiarities cost. That way, regardless of the sfx of your character and his abilities, the costing structure is the same. The reason I mentioned the MP option is that it did apply not just to spells but to "heroic talents" or "tricks" and the lot, whereas this one does not BUT IT COULD BE! class implies a stronger limi on available types than i normally use in hero. in general, the free/familiarity style costing for only some archtypes or components tends to disfacor those characters who rely on things costed more normally by effect based pricing. Examples include the tricks already mentioned the 6d6 flash eye gouge bs the 6d6 flash spell, liozardman/goblinoid/snakeman character whose net 2.5d6 HKA is derived from routine strength and natural but vicious claws (paid for at effect based price) and his armor paid for as "scaly hide" paid for at effect price and whose flash attack "blinding spittle" is paid for at effect price as opposed to the guy with sword and armor both of whom get significant price breaks from even their focus (accounts for can be removed) prices or the mage whose dazzle spell costs like a skill! In many fantasy genre, having the reptile man as a protagonist is fine, but if he is charged at effect based price whereas mages and warriors get spells and gear at skill/fam pricing, it would be rare imx for players to choose such a character concept because it isn't nearly cost effective. 1 or 3 is no matter. Ga is NOT talking about charging anything near EFFECT BASED cost. Did you get the idea that his fireball 6d6 aoe would be costing 20 cp? 10 cp? I mean look, either the system is giving the spells a serious discount off the "pay for effect based pricing" (in which case it addresses the imbalance you mention above and brings this in line with heroic equipment weapons and armor - that was part of the intent right) - or it doesn't and we have the same balance issues we have with mages paying for effect based priced spells now. you seem to be at one point arguing that that full price for spells caused a problem this addresses but then when i point out the issues of reducing the cost you suddenly seem to be saying it isn't cheap enough to be a problem, or somesuch. i prefer to have effects priced using the same system as the same effect purchased with a different descriptor. never a fan of "because you chose the better sfx, you get a price break" or its reverse. in the system described - as i understand it, spells and equip are free but you have to pay for skills to use them or familiarities. You dont have to worry about building the fireball or the sword. presumably these costs for skills and fam are comparable. these prices are significantly less than their (after limitations for foci and spell casting) their superheroic prices. MARTIAL ARTS however are still priced at the EFFECT BASED pricing they use in superheroic games, where they play balanced against EFFECT BASED priced spells and bought weapons, so they seem left out in the cold. A lizardman whose HKA damage is derived from a claws HKA and whose higher PD/ED and armor based on his tough hide and who has a venom spray flash effect is all charged full effect pricing just like in a superheroic game. Why is it GOOD for lizardman to pay full price for his useful traits and BAD for wizard to pay full prices for his useful traits if the gear guy is getting the heroic price break? The only disagreement i have for this aproach is it still leaves significant portions of reasonable character types in the lurch the mage used to be in, and hey, if the goal is to promote a warrior and mage centric game then thats going to achieve it with aplomb. But dont expect many lizrdmen among characters who are on a budget. NPCs are off budget so lizardmen might be common, just not as the protagonists. More limiting than i prefer, though very appropriate for some fantasy genre. Why isn't it better for everyone to have the same sort of pricing scheme and for there not to be a gross difference between a dazzle spell and a blinding spittle natural ability?

Re: Power Skill with No Power Well, to be different... just because it is in the rulebook doesn't mean you can or should buy it. Power skill is a skill at using a certain set of powers. thats basically it. just because it is a skill on the list that doesn't mean you can/should purchase it any more than COMPUTERS. What would you consider a valid use for COMPUTER skill in a fantasy world where electronics and computers... see? Power skill without the powers is useless. If a PC had a concept that called for such - say a veteran mage who lost his magical aptitude, i would charge him 0 for the power skill. he would retain the various arcane arts skills, basically knowledge skills. If he ever got his magical abilities back he would then pay purchase price for his power skill. much the same way i wont charge an alien pc for AK My home planet (or count it against his everyman skills), unless the campaign is going there. So my answer would be -power skill without the powers costs nothing and does nothing. Skills to represent experience with such matters would be knowledge skills or professional skills. I dont like muddying the waters by mixing the functions of ""action skills" and broader knowledge skills. I wont let someone with good stealth roll stealth to figure out spy stuff, or someone with acrobatics use it for figuring out things about gymnastic tourneys. Power skill is for manipulating a given set of powers, nothing more. IMO. That said, in hero you can gain use of powers without paying for them - the old "pick up a focus and use it once - and if the focus were sufficiently in sfx with the power skill, it could certainly be used for it, but thats not power skill "alone" but rather "temporary gain of powers' along with relevent power skill.

Re: Spells As Skills

Re: Spells As Skills and balance provided by the GM both in play and with chargen oversight. yup. A notion not lost on many other game systems in fact! :-)

Re: Spells As Skills having never played in a game or ran one in any genre that allowed the build you own maertial maneuvers (there seemed to be some balance issues there), i didn't know the specifics for flashy martial maneuvers and always used effect-based builds for them. Thanks for the tips, but I would have to look up the particluars before knowing whether this would suffice - limited dcs etc. Now i wonder if there is a martial element with an entangle element in it for hogtie? :-) But since this isn't a system you will be implementing or using or detailing, I will stop asking you questions about it. I misunderstood and thought it was something you were planning on developing. thanks.

Re: Spells As Skills absolutely. there is no reason eye gouge could not be a free talent" that requires a fam to use. My question is - why isn't it? Now some fantasy, as you describe, might well tend to only focus on equip and spell types, in which case, having the system charge out the nose for other character types may be a design goal. You basically want all your pcs to be knights and mages, give only knights and mages free effects. you wont have to ban or veto scruffy tricky fighting types because an average player on a buidget will see "they cost too much to work" if thats your intent in only allowing free effects to spellers and gear-hounds, then thats fine. But for me, in most fantasy games i have run, the thievy types and the sneaky types and the in betweens were very interesting characters and not ones i would want to discourage. I tended to allow the same point shaving mechanisms i allowed to make spell casters viable to be applicable to other sfx types who were in the "pay for effect" boat. Eye gouge would be bought using similar accounting mechanics as the dazzle spell. So when i see "cost break for spells' but not for other "pay for effect" i wonder why the Gm is set against these other types of charcters? if he sees the imbalances when guys with pointy hats and cloaks have to pay full for effects, why doesn't he see the same problem when sneaky devious types have to do the same thing for their tricks? Absolutely, and I wonder why "heroic talents" or whatever are paid at effect-based pricing while spells and equipment are not. So, let me ask, is it your intent to so restrict the strength spell that it is worth the points or lack of points paid for it and no more. Cause from the fireball example you gave earlier, that did not seem to be the case. Would a strength spell be a special case where you do hobble it so much that buying strength is comparatively worth it, whereas the fireball spell would be a significant price break compared to buying the spell at effect-based pricing? either you misread my post or i am really confused. Arent you requiring math for buying characteristics, for buying cv, for buying end and stun and climbing skill and all the other stuff that doesn't fall into the two categories of "spells and equipment"? So the whole nada zip etc isn't quite accurate, right? Its only accurate for those two categories but the rest of the stuff requires the math. hence my question - why require the math be done for all those other things if so much free stuff is off the books? What purpose does charging for str 20 vs str 10 and cv 5 vs cv 3 serve? its not "balance" because with both spells and equipment off the books balance is moved wholly into GM oversight. so if its not balance, why do it with math? Why not have all those stats be as fairly handled by the gm as spells and equipment are? That would make for quick chargen with almost no math involved. no objections there, just wondering why this approach works for categories as broad as magic and equipment but is inappropriate for tricks and characteristics? i would expect such a game to see a preponderance of wizards and knights, characters who focus mostly on equipment or spells, and in some cases on hybrids - swordmages - who guild the lily twice over getting good play out of free equip and from free spells. (a guy who is a fighter with a fewe spells which augment his fighting - such as strength spells and dcv boost spells and speed spells and maybe a healing spell or a movement boost. how about a boost sword spell, which adds 1d6rka to a sword - sfx flaming or maybe just sharpness ) I would exspect to see few if any tricky maneuver types. No eye gougers. no entangling rope masters, no any type who has to pay for their effectiveness on an effect-based pricing. Understand again, i am not saying that it wont work or is a bad idea. i think its a fine approach but if applied to just certain types, then it definitely maintains or creates the same balance difficulties and accounts away certain character types. I have the same problem with the 5th ed fh option of "just divide spells by 3 or 5 for cost" since that doesn't include letting the player divide "eye gouge" or "hogtie" by 3 or 5. To me, if i make my players do the hero math, then it is my obligation to NOT WASTE THEIR TIME. that means the math has to mean something. The general hero justification is : effectiveness is related to cost" Well as soon as the rules (in the book or in my game) allow eye gouge for 15 cp and dazzle spell for 1 cp with similar levels of difficulty/restrictions or i allow hogtie for 15 cp and silver webs spell at 1 cp (fam based) or 3 cp (divide by 5) just because one is a maneuver and the other a spell, i have lost that justification for "do this math guys" GMs dont need the points to balance the game, even for potent effects like fireballs and invisibility spells and plate armor and great axes, so why need the math for strength and int and comliness (if using 5e)? Basically, i like the idea but why stop halfway? What about INT or EGO or eye gouging is so much more difficult to manage as gm that you need them handled and restricted by points thn fireballs, flight spells, polymorph etc?

Re: Spells As Skills Yup absolutely. and these familiarities with weapons and armor are pretty cheap compared to the cost of buying the HKAs and RKAs and HA would be. Free cp equipment adds a lot of effectiveness for little cost and specifically the cost is not related to effectiveness - fam with dagger and fam with two handed sword cost the same in spite of huge diff in dc gained. well they have to buy maneuvers at least. They might have to buy familiarities with weapons if they want to gild the lily with weapons plus martial maneuvers. Most of the time, IMX, if required to pay for martial maneuvers, the MA will be investing more points, sometimes significantly more points, into maneuvers than the fighter does with his free equipment familiarities. Take a fighter with fam in swords (what, say 1.5d6 hka?) he can easily get to a 2.5d6 hka with moderate str investment for a price of something like 7 pts or so, allowing for a 2 pt fam with swords. A martial artist with similar str need pay a lot more in DC and maneuver cost to get the same level of damage. Its all because he is having to pay for the DCs the sword gives the fighter for free... hge is paying for effect, not a token cost to use the effect. And again, if my streetfighter has to pay for his "eye gouge" flash effect at 15 cp while my mage needs pay 1 cp for my "dazzle spell" that both accomplish the same result - temp blinded adversary, then i dont see the costs coming in line. Where is it required that wizards pay for tons of spells? Why cant a spell chucker have a few, maybe a dozen? maybe 5 or 6? Also, being able to buy a lot of discounted effects isn't an argument for the balance side of things. yes it is POSSIBLE that bthe gm can indeed limit the spells so much, so greatly reduce their utility that a 1 cp fam cost is appropriate for the effect gained, but that wasn't the example given. The fireball listed was worth a lot more than 1 cp or 3 cp in power. I do not get the idea that GA plan is to so hobble spells that you would be as good buying the effects normally - after all if thats the plan then this is just a waste of time, right? "You can go the fam route and get crippled spells or you can go the pay for effect route and get expensive but workable spells but the net result is going to balance the same." A strength spell that is so limited that its worth free is not what I gathered was the intent of the system. In the Fh games i have run, about 5 if i recall, the difference in heroic games between "paying for effect" and paying for familiarities for free effects was very significant. The lower the points allowed the more significant the difference... as you give up a high proportion of your resources. The one time i went with "pay for effect" spells proved to me it was th wrong approach. After that i tended to use MP for "spellbooks" and the like. This accomplished several things. 1. The pool cost for the MP reserve served as a reasonable benchmark for "how powerful the mage is." 2. the cost for adding new spells was trivial, along the lines of familiarities. 3. The power of a spell was related to its cost and was restrictive as it factored against the pool. A really powerful spell might prevent you running your defenses. But at the same time - I also allowed "martiql tricks multipowers so the eye gouge could get similar pricing for the streetfighter type. i am NOT objecting to moving spells into the free equipment piles like swords and armor and horses, not one bit, (unless the gm makes an active effort to make sure they are only worth the free by hobbling the spells as may be what some are thinking.) I am questioning why all the other kinds of things that dont fall into equipment or magic cubbyholes have to pay for effect and how imbalanced is that? having gmed for a variety of character types other than mages and swordslingers and seen people buy "tricks" at full effect cost and at multipower costs, My experience is the system works best, most balanced, when similar effects in result are purchased for similar costs or thru similar mechanics. EYE Gouge: 6d6 flash no range requires streetfighting skill roll at -3 cost 15 cp Dazzle spell 6d6 flash requires magic skill roll at -3 and lets say full action to cast cost fam 1 cp (given the write up sample for fireball this doesn't seem like an outlandish "free spell") Those two do not seem to enhance balance at all. charging 1 cp for an effective str spell and 10 cp for +10 str doesn't seem to be helping balance at all. Again, not objecting to the idea or even the system, but it seems to be just moving the point of imbalance and not solving problems. In core, free equip creates balance problems against spells and maneuvers and so forth. Moving spells into the free merely give you more free stuff to be imbalanced against the pay for effect stuff. I am suggesting that IF the Gm is comfortable with his ability to balance things with both magic and spells basically off the books, then he could be just as comfortable balancing things liike str and maneuvers as well by the same way. Dont make them do any math. have them define effects and rely on the gm and his veto to wind up with balanced characters just as he is relying on the Gm to balance equipment and to balance fireballs and flight spells and invisibility rings.

Re: So how did you guys learn the system? I picked up a few second ed, but did not get started until third, so my first game ran with the early third rules but a lot of second ed source material.

Re: Spells As Skills My main question would be "ok so what about non-magic stuff?" My street fighter type wants the following... Eye gouge: Flash 6d6 to sight, no range, requires Streetfighting skill roll (about 30 ap amd 15 rp) My sword master wants: Counter strike: 1.5d6 hka damage shield (apply appropriate advantages and disads for whatever version of hero you are using) no end etcpossibly with lims such as "with preferred weapon only and requires swordmaster skill roll have you now moved to a system where: equipment based guys get a lot of effectiveness for free, in terms of cp off the books, like armor and swords. Magic users get a lot of umph for free, by only paying skills for spells. But more maneuver-based guys pay thru the nose for special abilities ????? I have no objection to non-points based acquisition of effectiveness. Most games run that way. At heroic levels, hero runs that way for equipment. The more you expand the "off the books umph" the less relevence you make the work done for the point buy for all the other stuff. Why did i pay for strength at 1-1 when i can get a strength boost spell for free or for familiarity? Why would i pay 5 pts for +1 ocv when i can have an accuracy spell for free? Now of course the gm can refuse to allowe something as common in fantasy as a strength spell because it stomps all over the normal point buy... but then the new subsystem is driving the setting, and i prefer myself the setting to drive the mechanics. Were i to take this approach, i would be very sorely inclined to scrap the point buy altogether. Simply hand the players a dozen or so sample characters to use as guidelines for 'the power levels i envision" and let them choose abilities and just write them down, regardless of points, and vette(sp) the characters for appropriateness. In that case, whether the flash is defined as eye gouge or as ectoplasmic goo spell has no effect on whether the character can also have strength 15 or not. Using the hero system as a game engine but scrapping its chargen is perfectly fine IMO and with the right group and a good gm can work wonders. As a gm tho, its the muddled in between - we use points for this and that but dont use points for those and these" that breaks down if not in a balance sense then in a common sense. Why do all the math if a that much more more stuff is off the books? To one previous poster - on arbitrary - a judgement by a gm is not by definition arbitrary. That decision can be as judged and reasoned and as consistent as any formulaic rendering can be. given the notion that we seem to agree that sometime ap and effectiveness dont jibe, following points and calculations could be seen as arbitrary. More over, the GM judgement can take into account a lot more information - the price of water breathing in a campaign with a strong atlantean presence vs one with mostly desert campaigning.

Re: Moon Domain Ability It really depends opn what the moon symbolizes in your world. forex- In some fantasy/modern fantasy worlds and legends, the moon is seen as a doorway to supernatural realms, a door to fae. so on full moons the door is open and all sorts of mystical changelings come thru and wreak havoc. Similarly, the new moon or dark moon may indicate closed or may indicate open to dark realms. So i would start with a summons fae creatures as a base power. i would consider side effects - and have the side effects be "inappropriate and hostile to caster beings come thru" I would consider buying for the summons some "+5 double creatures" with lims on those +5 pts based on moon stage. such as -2 only on full or new moon or -1 only on 1/4 and 3/4 moon I would buy the different types of creatures but with a lim for "limited by moon stage - dark nefarious types for new moon and flighty mischevious types for full moon.

Re: So how did you guys learn the system? i bought it between 2nd and 3rd edition and immediately started gming. it is easily the system i have the most hours/campaigns using. got every version and most if not all of the products since 2nd. the sheer poundage of hero books on my shelf is amazing to me

Re: Alas, no more Independent! One last issue, at least for me, is: how do you keep your balance in a game that lets you do anything? Hero's answer is that everything costs points, and you have a finite supply. If you say "points don't matter anymore" then there is no reason to limit yourself. A wizard can create a magic staff that can shoot three fireballs a day, or he can create a magic staff that contains every spell ever known, grants +12 SPD to the wielder, and uses zero END. If points don't matter, then the only thing stopping him is GM veto. This requires the GM to exercise a lot more judgment and authority, to review everything carefully, and personally I find it exhausting. Ultimately it's not the player building the power anymore, its the GM building everything to the player's specification. And again, if I want to run things that way it's a lot simpler and less work to do it in Fudge. balance in hero is not provided by active points or real points but by gm policing. The in play impact of water breathing varies greatly by campaign even though it has a set cost of 5cp. The in game value of sense invisible varies greatly by setting, even though it has a set value. The in game value of 2d6 rka firebolt will definitely vary in a game with heroic equipment rules (where it is common for characters to have similar damaging weapons or armoras free equipment) as opposed to the same game with superheroic equipment rules. Even with the carefully constructed point tallies, it comes down to GM judgement, not points as to where balance and imbalance are. note how few times the questions about balancing characters get responses along the lines of "if they are built on same points you should be good" as opposed to answers talking about dc caps, rox, ocv dcv comparisons, defense values, etc. Gms achieve balance in hero not by letting the points add up, but by comparing the results, the actual in game effects, an asking questions like "how often will this hit?" "how much damage does it do?" etc. this is exactly what is done in games like fudge and dnd where there isn't a point system and you just "make it up". sometimes you will see detractors of the other systems bemoaning the lak of a build system because "how do you know how powerful something is?" and the answer is "by comparing the net results, what it will do, and how good that is compared to other stuff... just like what you have to do in hero." Having run many a game system, most of which had minimal to no "carefully constructed point by for stuff systems" I have had no more and no less balance issues in them than in hero. truthfully, i have had a few more in hero because the existence of the point by to some players seems like permission to "get anything i can build legally". and of course, is making the character pay cp fr the ring of water breathing at all balanced when the knight gets his warhorse, plate armor, two handed sword all free under standard heroic rules? More over, is it fair to charge the other knight character lotsa points because his enchanted plate armor which gives him water breathing as well as the typical protection of plate armor when the other knight just gets the protection and it is free? balance isn't about points, doesn't derive from points and never has been never will be... its about gm judgement and reasoned approval and dissapproval for his campaign.

Re: A Playable Black Bolt well a lot depends on "what do you find interesting about black bolt" as he is many things. flying brick electric blaster mute character Sonic wmd he almost never uses. several of the suggestions basically remove the wmd aspect by sliding it into "fluff not substance" to the extent that his comp could be "he is delusional that speaking will destroy lots of real estate" instead of "speaking will destroy lots of real estate" and be indistinguishable in actual play. that might not be what you were after. if you really want the power, i dont think its all that tough on 350. buy a Mp and have one "all points slot" be an rka aoe megascale where the size of the area means its usually a very bad idea to use it. Your gm will be wary, rightfully so, but if he trusts you and you deserve that trust then it can work out fine. another alternative for a possible variant is to buy the blast that way but with lotsa lims - lotsa inc end, 0 dcv, etc. I do like making the attack vs sonic flash defense to a degree with does body. as long as you avoid making it the "when the master villain pops up i drop him" can opener, it can work. The hardest thing imo is the mute. I have seen players try and run this and every time it basically failed. It cuts out so much of what you are there for, interaction, if they actually play it. often they wind up just handwaving it off with things like saying ooc "my character writes blah blah blah..." and so effectively they have talking character and free points for not talking. I now when i have a determined player, give out very few points for mute, because i know the player in short order will find a workaround and be just as vocal a player and as active a participant in planning etc as any other.

Re: Alas, no more Independent! I see two different things being conflated here. How does the character make/get magic items? that is simply a campaign world "laws of magic" definition thing for the setting. in some its an easy ritual, in others its prayer, in others its sacrifice. All of this is flavor and has nothing to do with "what is written on the character sheet" How does a player record and enter into his character sheet the presence of a magic item he found, he made, etc and how does it get "paid for" if at all? If it does get paid for, what happens when it is broken or lost, especially if it is a found which cannot be just remade? No one ever used independent in my games. Every time someone did i explained - you are "renting" the powers. It will be lost and when it is lost the cp go away." every time they changed their mind because everytime they saw it as just a freebie -2 and they never expected to have it affect them. Glad its gone. if a character is a blacksmith in your game and he spends some time and makes a sword, a regular sword, do you make him pay points for the sword? If a character finds an axe in your game and keeps it and uses it, do you make him pay points for it? If a character finds a horse in your game, keeps it, learns to ride it, trains it, etc do you make him pay cp for it? Why should the answer change if th sword has the ability to glow red hot and inflict some extra damage? Why should the answer change if the axe can once a day turn itself and the weilder invisible? Why should the answer change if the horse has wings and can fly and carry a rider? Most FH games I am familar with would have answered the first three questions "no" using the heroic equipment rules. You can leave the answers to the magic ones NO as well and have things stay in check if the in game necessities to make magic items are sufficiently limiting. Time and materials and difficulty can do wonders for preventing an overabundance of magic items. But again it is a question of setting? if its fairly easy to make magic items, if a wand of healing can be whipped out in a day from relatively available components, then one would expect to see a lot of them in the world. So the pcs making a couple is no big deal. They are fairly ubiquitous. If the wands require a month of prep or rare materials that are risky and difficult to obtain, and which are sought by other such talented individuals, then you wont have a wand surplus. Plus while that mage is spending a month off in his tower, what else is going on? In a heroic equipment game, two fighters with the same point totals can be side by side... one has bare hands and is naked, the other has swords and bows and armor and a horse... all for the same point total, and will slaughter the unarmed and unarmored guy. So balance by points is already tossed aside when there is equipment disparity. Calling the equipment "magic" doesn't change that and shouldn't. If you want to try and keep equipment effects balanced, don't use heroic equipment. perhaps give each character an equipment pool. "for every 1 cp invested in the pool your character can have 5 cp of equipment" or somesuch. Or just use superheroic equipment rules and make them pay for every dagger, lantern, an vial of poison they keep.

Re: Base Line Hero I, like you, don't find rox to be tht useful. I take a similar approach to you except I do a few things differently. First i generate a dozen villains. usually this is like three bricks type, three blaster types, three ma/speedster types and then three individual oddball types including a mentalist, a drainer and whatever odd duck fits my campaign feel. I give these dozen character to the players and tell them to build their PCs and compare them to these guys in terms of fighting them. I give some benchmarks like "you can bring him down in X-Y phases, counting misses as phases." And "against his blasts you can last A-B phases." I also provide guidelines for 'if you fall within a-b and x-y for 9 of the enemies thats fine. If you kill 1-2 of them really quick but another couple take longer thats fine. etc. The primary purpose is twofold. 1 - give the players some guidelines to stay within before they build character so the first pass is right, if at all possible. i hate spending a lot of time balancing out down to the familiarity getting my points just right only to have the gm say "you really need 5 pts more there or you need to knock this back" 2. To provide a broader range of options and comparisons so we are all on the same page. It also serves with some of the oddballs and even the "thirds" (the third brick, third blaster, third speedster are often unusual in some way) to spark ideas. Finally, a while back i started a 'unique power" gimmick where i take 25-50 pts off the top of any character i build. i build the basic character on the rest of the points. So my 400 pt hero would be built for nuts and bolts heroing on 350. Then i take the remaining 50 pts to buy some odd and distinctive unique power that can be significant storywise in game. often these will have significant limitations which prevent them from being "combat worthy" but have significant roleplaying opotential. For example, for 50 pts one can easily buy a multipower with either gradual effect, extra time, or even extra endurance and load it up with high dice healing and transforms to represent a "true healing" power which can go cure cancer in people or heal the lame etc. Who do you save? can you save everyone? How many rich people and poor people lining up to get cured? Depending on the character's sfx all sorts of odd powers can be worked up under 50 cp and it gives this "blaster" something unusual and unique. I tend to try and give the dirty dozen the same kinda gimmicks and to try using them as examples to nudge the players away from "every point is for combat" mindset. Sometimes it works. sometimes not.

Re: What value for Limitation of a defense Power that only works when Combat Luck doe

Re: When sfx lie dcv as indestructable sfx - not in my game. because of nnd attacks that by sfx should not be stopped by his indestructability because of entangles - are you too "tough" to be tied up or encased in a ff? also if i spread my eb so it gains bonuses to hit then suddenly its my damage vs your defenses - and weakening my attacks strength should not be a counter to indestructability. buying extra defense as dodging, i can see particularly if it is restricted appropriately say requiring a dex roll or maybe "only when dodging" or linked to dcv levels. its a form of rolling with the punch.

Re: Dummies Guide to Rule of X for 6th Ed i dont use rox because it is simply nottrue that a high dice low accuracy attack is equivalently effective to a low dice accurate attack in many cases. miss miss miis ko is not the same as plink plink plink plink plink p,ink plink plink unless the system also sets upper and lower ranges for the dcs. Also, there are tons of circumstantial effects, some possible in control of the player, that make "accuracy" less of an issue. for example - assume a dc+ocv of 24. 20d6 plus ocv 4 is a lot better than dc 4 ocv 20 especially if in a superheroic game not using hit locations. this gets even more true is the 20 dc guy has a mp slot with a target hex aoe entangle which can drop the dcv he is shooting at to 0. I design the dirty dozen - twelve sample npc villains. usual spread is three brick, three blaster, two speedster/ma, and four exotics. I give them to the players at chargen start with guidelines for "how many phases will it take you to take them each out as well as how many phasers will it take them to each take you out. for example, for a quick combat game the numbers might be 2-5 with an average of 3 but for a longer game it might be 5-10 with an average of 8. Its ok for one or two to be out of the bounds, everyone has a good matchup or a bad matchup now and again. IMX with rox you need a lot of extra boundaries beyond the rox itself to keep the results appropriate.