Brian Stanfield

Glen, this is awesome! I had dreams of doing something similar myself, but even more brief than yours. The one thing you most definitely got right is including the package deals at the beginning! I gave my buddy a copy of Fantasy Hero Complete a year ago, and he was overwhelmed (this is why I started that thread at the time). One of the problems is that he was looking for some reference point on how to make a character: what should be included, what sort of skills, what sort of background, etc., but the package deals are buried in the back of the book. You've made them a central part of creating a character for beginners, which is a really useful strategy. You also include the tables showing relative power levels (heroic vs. superheroic, etc.), as well as the starting values for the characteristics. This is not readily obvious when looking at a character sheet in FHC. In fact, as a beginner's book it really seems to assume a lot more player knowledge than should be expected for a beginner. I love what you've done.
 
I plan on, one day, writing something similar but even more brief. More like Xotl's Fantasy Hero Primer, but less directed and more general. I think a quick 30 page document outlining the character building process, including some guidance on package deals, racial and professional packages, etc., along with a general but less detailed discussion of the skills and powers would be useful. In essence, I want to write a companion to Fantasy Hero Complete that will simplify the character creation process, and give a tour of the game along with page references to the book for more details. Although I like the book, it follows the same format that HERO has used for decades, and it's not necessarily intuitive. New, and I mean brand new, players really need something to translate the book for them. The combat stuff is easy to understand, for the most part, so can be summarized really quickly. But I think a rundown of all the different rolls and how they are calculated is a must. A sample combat is also a really useful tool for newbies to get a feel for the game.
 
Anyway, that's the long version of "Awesome! Thanks!"

Hi Brian ( and anyone else who might be interested.)
 
I've been given permission to put my home brew thing up here. So here it is.
 
I'd like to point out again that I've gone for simplicity. So this means I've skipped a lot of options that might make for more elegant designs. Also for magic I've avoided doing anything like charges for spells; I prefer the idea of sorcerers being able to cast spells all day if need be. They're paying a lot of points for their spells.
 
The main idea is that character design should be fairly easy for a new player to grasp. So I've used packages that can be mixed and matched as the player wants.
 
I've simplified the skills list and included an abbreviated version of the combat rules.
 
Lastly there's equipment lists and my own take on how weapons and armour interact.
 
Cheers. ?
 
Compilation_v22_draft.pdf
 

From what I've heard, they've pulled them because the light blue index entries in the original color PDF comes out as a very light grey when printed and apparently not readable in some copies. It's my understanding that the plan is to fix it then offer the POD again. It's unknown how long that will take.

I think once you decide how to deal with how each armour type deals with each type of weapon(bludgeoning, slashing, thrusting), it's simple. Aside from doing it in game time.
 
Sword was pretty much always taught after staff/spear for a reason, since they follow similar mechanical principles. Also because, in reality, knowing sword meant knowing sword against sword, sword against spear, sword against sword and shield, etc.
 
The key difference is range. Once inside, a spear is now a bludgeoning weapon(yes, there are a few moves for bringing the point to bear inside, but the available moves if you're holding a long weapon and your opponent is inside are made up of far far more bludgeoning  than stabbing, and pretty much no slashing). At long range, staff is a more powerful bludgeoning weapon than it is in close range, because the leverage is far greater if you hold it at the base than at the center. This holds true for spear as well.
 
As for plate, there is a reason that thrusts became more prevalent after the age of armour ended. Heavy swings allowed for more pressure to be put on the armored opponent while allowing momentum to be more continuous, while thrusts were less likely to penetrate. Thrusts were ideally saved for when position allowed them against points where mobility requirements meant that the plate could not cover that point.
 
Arrows and bolts are really just piercing, range is also their biggest thing.
 
The key difference between most rpg approaches to weapons and a realistic one is that, in reality, assuming competence in your weapon, the most important knowledge at play for you is knowledge of how one fights with what your opponent has. If that knowledge is zero, you are likely to die. For a realistic game(in which players also wanted this realism) I've used a house rule that stated that the skill roll at play in attacks would be no higher than the skill level one has in their opponent's weapons, so if one had a high skill in sword but low in staff, and the opponent had a staff, then the lower of the two applied. The players were supposed to be seasoned soldiers, so it encouraged the purchase of a broad range of weapon types(each specific weapon did not have to be covered, long weapons, straight swords, curved sword, flexible weapons, broad categories were bought). This often worked dramatically for the players, as the enemies also fell under the same limitations, which meant that lackies were in trouble.
 
Anyway, good luck with what you're working on.

You might like this guy's YouTube channel:
 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA

OK, this might not be the most cogent post I've made, b/c I'm a bit under the weather, so apologies in advance.
 
Weapons evolve to defeat armor. Armor evolves to defeat weapons. This cycle continues up to the limit of current technology. New technology restarts the cycle.
 
That's my very basic understanding of things.
 
So, for the game table, I'd let everything flow from that cycle, stopping short of the introduction of new technology.
 
What this means is, weapons and armor can both be abstracted out to their current static tech level without worrying too much about this or that type of damage. While you can go into detail about what weapon is better versus what armor, you don't need to if people are bringing the same pool of weapons to the battle field. This is the opposite of what the OP is asking for, I know. But I'm going to share a few thoughts I had while reading the thread in the hope that some of it is still useful or may be useful for someone else.
 
First, let's talk about armor types in RPGS: There are too many. Realistically, only a few armor types are used in a given region during a given period. RPGs throw in everything and the kitchen sink, because that's the route D&D took with literally every aspect of the game. There's nothing wrong with that approach, and it provides a lot of choices and variety, but there's also no real reason to stick to it, either. So, here's how I'd break down armor for a sort of realistic setting (with magic, more on that in a minute):
 
Heavy clothing: Offers only a low level of damage resistance.
Padded garments: Worn under heavier armor or used as sole armor. Gambesons. Offers a decent amount of Armor  (or whatever it's called now)
Flexible metal armor: Chain or coats of plates. Worn over a gambeson. Provides even more Armor.
Plate: Pieces of plate provide the most Armor.
 
Pretty simple. These armor types cover everything from civillians to peasant conscripts and foot soldiers to mercenaries and town guards to heavy cavalry.
 
The biggest distinction is how much of the better types of coverage people are bringing to the battle field. Hero offers two obvious ways to handle this: Hit Locations and Activation Rolls. I find Activation Rolls against layers of armor appealing and simple. For example, a footman protecting his most vital parts:
 
Layer One: Gambeson (and whatever the leg equivalent is called). No activation roll, provides, let's say 3 Def.
Layer Two: Chest and Head covered in Mail. Activation on 14-, let's say another 3 Def. Not that the chain has lower defense, but our footman will be getting 6 Def on a successful activation, meaning that's actually the value of the chain, and his lower defense bits will be hit on a failed activation. Also, I just pulled those numbers out of thin air, so feel free to use whatever numbers you like.
 
Let's take a half armored knight, wearing a full suit of chain and a plate helm and upper body armor. Apparently, ditching leg armor was pretty common to save weight.
 
Layer One: Gamebson AND Chain. This is the no activation roll layer. Def 6.
Layer Two: Plate, adding 4 Def (total 10) on a 15- activation.
 
Let's say a town guard who's not particularly well-off:
 
Layer One: Sturdy woolen clothing: No activation roll, maybe 1 or 2 damage resistance.
Layer Two: Padding and a coat of plates covering his chest only. Let's say 6 PD, with an activation of 11-
Layer Three: Metal Helmet with padding: 2 PD with an activation of 8-
 
He'd roll one activation roll. If it's under 8-, he takes a shot to the head against a total of 8 PD of armor, plus another 1 or 2 damage resistance. If it's between 9 and 11, he takes a shot to the chest with 6 PD of armor and another 1 or 2 damage resistance. If he doesn't make the 11-, he's only got his normal PD/ED with 1 or 2 of that made resistant from his clothing.
 
Easy peasy.
 
Shields, I'd use the old 4th Edition Fantasy Hero idea of boosting DCV, allowing the same bonus to the OCV of Block attempts.
 
Some other considerations for armor: How easy is it to move in? How heavy is it? Oh, it's metal? LIGHTNING BOLT!* (b/c fantasy hero). These can be baked in advantages/disadvantages, and I'm sure whatever version of FH  you have has ideas on those, like LTE for heavier armor setups, DEX based roll penalties (really on almost every type of armor), etc.
 
As for weapons: You might want to group your "common" weapons familiarity groups by region, with an eye toward what armor you're providing based on the campaign, but beyond that, I wouldn't worry too much about it. You could probably look at historical info from the historical European martial arts guys an come up with martial arts that are specific to certain weapons or weapons categories, but that'd also be a bit of work to make distinctive. (And there's going to be overlap anyway.)
 
*Edit: Lightning Bolt: 2d6 RKA + 2d6 RKA, Only vs. Metal  Armor.

https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Weapons-Prehistory-Chivalry-Military/dp/0486292886
 
Oakeshott is pretty much the go to guy for evolution of medieval weapons and armor.

If you think our discussions here get heated, you should go over to a weapons forum and see the arguments there.  People in real life can't agree what type of weapon is best versus what type of armor, or how certain weapons were used historically.  The biggest problem is that we don't really have a lot of answers for some of this stuff.  Even if you see weapon tests on the internet, it's hard to know if the people are using real stuff or just some piece of junk they bought at the mall.
 
A gambeson (the traditional D&D "padded armor") is actually fairly effective against slashing attacks.  It has multiple layers of wool or linen.  The edge of a sharp blade may cut the thing it's in contact with, but it doesn't cut through multiple separate layers that well.  Now, if you get the sword really sharp, you might be able to slice through the padding.  But if you hit a really sharp sword against a hard surface (like metal armor or a shield), it isn't going to remain really sharp for very long.  You're much more likely to roll the edge of the blade or chip it, compared to a sword that isn't razor blade sharp.
 
I'm not an expert by any means, I know just enough to know that I'm basically clueless.  There was a 20th century British guy named Ewart Oakeshott who created a classification system for medieval swords.  He identified 13 types of sword, each one with different characteristics.  In D&D, all of these would be considered longswords, bastard swords, and maybe great swords.  His classification system didn't take into account sabres, broadswords, short swords, katanas, rapiers, scimitars, or anything else like that.  He found 13 types of basically medieval knight-looking swords.  Honestly they all look the same to me.  But some have a narrower blade, so the tip can fit between the rings of a suit of mail.  The wider blades are going to be a little more forgiving when you are cutting, but the tip may be too fat to fit through the small rings.  Do you or your players really want to have a noticeable difference between an Oakeshott Type XII and an Oakeshott Type XVIIIc?  That's not even getting into fake armor, like dragon scale or a magic ring of protection.
 
Historically, people were trained to use all parts of their weapon.  There are medieval illustrations showing people half-swording and using pommel strikes.  That appears to have been a standard thing.  So if you were using a sword, instead of just stabbing and slashing, you might grab the blade with your other hand (the part closer to the cross-guard that you intentionally didn't sharpen), spin it around and smash the other dude in the face with the big metal knob on the end of the handle.
 
If you really want to do the work, you can come up with bonuses and penalties to take into account every kind of medieval weapon and armor.  I don't think most people are gonna enjoy that, or know enough about it to really care.  I think most players want Lord of the Rings, Conan, or Braveheart instead.

No difference.
 
 
No need to add a talent - use the one that's there.
 
Burns Hot:  (Total: 16 Active Cost, 16 Real Cost) Deadly Blow:  +1d6 ([limited circumstances]: With fire spells that do damage) (Real Cost: 16)
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary points out that "broad circumstances" could be "all damaging magic"

I've played with the idea in the past(in another system, but this is not so system specific) of gaining new spells either from finding those spells/being taught them by someone who knows them, and/or of researching through a skill spells one wishes to make.
 
They would still need to buy the spell when the time came.
 
This would be a campaign thing, not a rule per se. That way, there is a process for increasing in power for spell users. In that approach, I also worked in the idea that there was no general 'spell making' skill, but that it had to be bought in specific fields, be it 'dark magic creation', 'charms creation', 'protective spell creation', etc, so that spell casters, to become powerful in a broad range of things, would really have to either spend points on a wider range of skills as well, or alternatively roleplay amicable contacts with other spell users who would teach them their spells, or have influence/resources to obtain(through hook or crook) magic they themselves did not have the ability to create.

I admit, I haven't read the entire thread, so some of this may already have been mentioned:
 
As a general rule , I like the idea of introducing granularity to the damage mechanics... but in practice it is usually more trouble than it is worth to both balance it in play and represent the realistic differences accurately. For example, many of the example suits of armor should realistically have differing rPD, and rED values, as well as some additional nonresistant PD and ED; but that level of granularity introduces a massive amount of detail to the game elements being used. This isn't so much of a problem during play, assuming everyone understands the mechanics. The problem in my experience is when I'm teaching new players said mechanics and their eyes glaze over at the block of game information three to five times the size of the simple, abstract models used in the official material.
 
Were I setting up such a system, every weapon and suit of armor would have to be rebuilt from scratch based on extensive research and arbitrary game balance considerations.
 
I think most weapons would end up as multipowers with slots representing their various modes of use. The slot would allow me to define the special effects, and any benefits or drawbacks inherent to that mode of use. Most weapons would provide two or three DCs worth of damage more than the STR Min of the weapon (assuming two-handed use, regardless of it's actual handedness). For reference; a Battle Axe provides +17 APs worth of damage over it's two-handed STR min of 13 (it can also be used one-handed with 15 STR).
For example, an Arming Sword would cause a given amount of slashing or piercing Killing Damage when used to hack or stab respectively, but would also take Does No Knockdown/back. The Arming Sword would cause a reduced number of DCs worth of blugdeoning Normal Damage and lose the benefits of the weapon's reach (which would be Linked to the Hacking and Stabbing slots) when the wielder uses the flat of the blade, the hilt, or pommel to strike with instead of the edge or point of the blade.
 
Armor would end up as Compound Powers providing various levels of partially advantaged and/or partially limited DCV, PD, rPD, ED, rED, and unusual defenses as appropriate to how that type of armor reacts to given types of damage.
For example a suit of chainmail would provide reasonable Defense, with slightly more PD & rPD than ED & rED, and a minimal DCV bonus (representing the armor's ability to deflect a glancing blow). A small portion of it's PD & rPD (probably half of the amount by which the chainmail's Defense exceeds its padding's) would take Doesn't Protect Against Piercing Damage. A suit of chainmail might also purchase additional DCV, PD, and/or rPD with Only Protects Against Slashing Damage. A suit of chainmail might also only provide as much Defense against Falling and Collision Damage as its padding would have alone (the rest being limited as above).

Is there much difference between a warrior buying "Deadly Strike" (or whatever it's called) to add +1D6 HKA to all swords, and a wizard buying "Fire Magic Expert" to add +1D6 RKA to all fire spells?

I'm not sure how only charging the difference is a lot different from upgrading the skill.  If I want to add AP, or reduce the concentration penalty, then I add the advantage, or reduce the limitation, but that means I am able to tweak the spell's build.
 
To me, a VPP is a Multipower with slots based on real, rather than active, cost.  The 6e innovation of being able to buy higher or lower maximum AP costs, separate from the size of the pool, clinched that.  Every spell has -3 in  limitations and you can only use one spell at a time, with a 60 AP cap?  15 point pool, 30 point control cost.  Limit to taste - if every spell must have certain limitations in common, or there are restrictions to changing the pool, the control cost is limited.  If the spells can be traded out faster, or without the usual skill roll, advantage on control cost.
 
Now, let's assume all spells must Require a Skill Roll (-1/2), and must select other limitations totaling -2 1/2, for that -3 total.  I'd allow the Control Cost a - 1 3/4 limitation being -1/2 for always needing RSR and -1 1/4 for the remaining Variable Limitations.  But if the rule is "only spells you have learned", maybe Flaming Ball of Doom has RSR, Gest (-14), Incant (-1/4), 2x END (-1/2), Concentrate 0 DCV (-1/2) and OAF: Wizard Staff (-1), so its 60 AP drop you down to 20 RP.  If the limitations cannot be easily reconfigured (i.e. you can only use spells you have learned, or you can only change the limitations during down time), I'd be OK with the full limitation value on the VPP slots.
 
So we need a 20 point reserve (20 real points), and a Control Cost of 60/2 = 30, with a -1 3/4 limitation, and let's say a further -1/2 for "only spells learned or researched", but you can freely switch between those spells by spending a half phase to refocus (+1/4 to reduce time to a half phase; +1/2 for no skill roll required).  That's 30 x 1.75/3.25 = 16, for a total cost of 36.  But now we have to determine which starting spells our Wizard can know, and how he can find, learn and/or research new ones.  Depending on how easy or hard that is, maybe -1/2 is not the right limitation.  However, especially given Dispels and similar targeting all magic will likely be pretty common, "Magic Only" should be a -1/4 limitation even if there are no restrictions to finding/learning spells. The control cost would only be 17 with that result.
 
Maybe a skilled Wizard can drop the total limitations to -2, so he can reduce the Variable Limitation to -3/4 (but he'll also need more real points to power these easier spells) - something for our novice wizard to aim for as he masters Magic. 

Hi Brian.
 
Please, call me Glen.
 
Yeah Fantasy Hero Basic is my own personal take on making a playable, beginner level game based on Fantasy Hero. I was inspired to do it by a thread, from about a year ago, about ways to introduce new players to the game without killing them with mechanics. A thread you started, IIRC.
 
My number one design point was KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. I wanted it to be something that new players could pick up and use without needing to know much about HERO system mechanics. This has affected how I went about it. No Multipowers or VPPs as they require too much system knowledge. I did think about having all magic be powered by a magical END reserve; having this END reserve was what made a sorcerer a sorcerer. But I opted against it because it added a level of complication and I told myself "KISS." This also why players are presented with relatively short lists of spells they can choose from; working on the idea that fewer choices is a good thing for new players as it makes decision making easier. Ditto for breaking up of spells into Apprentice, Journeyman, and Master. It's just to help separate out the spells into roughly equivalent power groups. There's no mechanical difference between the groups; just a more difficult skill roll.
 
My second design point was "what is the style of game?" And I think this is the question you need to answer. The system will have to represent how powerful, flexible, and ubiquitous magic is. I have aimed for a low fantasy/low magic. The magic system I've designed for it will (hopefully) encourage players who want magic to opt for some magic with other skills (combat and non-combat.) Those who wish to focus exclusively on magic can do so but it is points expensive.
 
I want to encourage magic to be different from weapons combat.  I want it to be able to do things that a person with a sword can't. So there are AoE, NND, Drains, Transforms, and Mental attacks. There are still spells like firebolt; a straight forward RKA. But the other options are such that this is actually a non-optimal choice. Of course there's magic for doing non-combat stuff. Again, I want it to be such that the magic is doing things normal people can't: sensing spirits, creating magical barriers, illusions, summoning elemental servants, raising the dead.
 
So I recommend you ask yourself "What do I want my magic system to look like?" Pick a book or movie or TV series that encapsulates what you want and break it down. We here are of course happy to help. ?
 
Cheers mate.
 
 
 

Did you happen to look at drunkonduty's magic system file? He had a great idea of only charging for the difference in cost for a new version of an existing skill. I like that a lot. 
 
I mentioned that I had built a Multipower system before, and in that I basically had separate Multipowers for each school of magic someone studied: fire school, necromancy, etc. The MP represented each magic tome, so I had all sorts of limitations set for re-arranging the slots, making new spells, etc., based on OAF, extra time for study, etc.  I got hung up on the cost for each MP Reserve, though, and so it got costly too. But I just saw an alternate rule basing the MP slots on Real Cost rather than Active Points, which would allow the Reserve to be smaller. So short story long, I may just go back to that. If I allow new slots to be added by paying the difference in cost of one that exists (like drunkonduty's system) then it can become quite cost effective. 
 
 
This is the crux of the problem, isn't it? I suppose if I'm trying to teach to new people I could just start with the standard Fantasy Hero Complete system to begin with, and pre-gen or highly packaged characters, and not worry about any of these decisions until they decide they want to do more advanced stuff.
 
 
Yeah, we were discussing roleplaying in this thread and coming up with ways to improve roleplaying interaction. It seems magic is one of those things that should inspire some good narrative fun, but most people just point and shoot without much thought. But I attribute that to "kids these days." 
 
Get off my lawn!

Hey, drunkonduty, I finally had a chance to look through your magic document. I like it! It's simple and clean and makes good sense. I especially like that sorcerers pay only the difference in cost for an improved spell. I hadn't thought of this at all, and it fits in perfectly with what I was wanting to do with he Spell Research skill but couldn't quite work out. 
 
Thanks for sharing it. By the way, what is Fantasy Hero Basic? Is that a beginners document you're working on?

Thanks.  I tried to throw in a lot of elements.  A female NPC for a PC to try to romance, but a no nonsense one, not a "damsel in distress."  And MCB a$$holes to give them grief.  The "carrot" of the possible high paying contract with the sheriff's department, meaning they have to act professional.  It's astonishing how many players can't run across an authority figure in game without having their character run their mouth.
 
One thing I DIDN'T include that I totally WOULD HAVE if this was a campaign is a competitor hunter squad also going after both the PUFF money and the sheriff's department contract.   Totally throw in another combat encounter - a knock down drag out brawl at the local waffle house between the two groups of hunters.

I've used the original Fantasy Hero system (but side effects were really brutal), normal point buy spells and multipowers.  I don't think we've ever scoped out a really novel magic system, or used the Turakian "divide cost by three" model,  
 
I find the discussions interesting.
 
In general, I find I agree with drunkonduty that magic works best when it does things that aren't just the same damage the warriors do.
 
I guess I question what you are trying to achieve that the rules are not already achieving.  How were wizards overpowered before?  Presumably, you have lived the "wizards clean out the whole room" issue.  What builds were having that result?
 
Going back to my build, above, if you divide the cost of the spell by 3, now that 40 point cost is only 13 points.  Invest some savings into +4 to the magic skill roll (or just drop the RSR to -1 per 20 AP so the spell costs 44 points/3 = 15, so the roll is now 16-), and that ability becomes much more readily attainable.
 
I also think it needs to be compared with what the warriors get to do.  Back in the first iteration of FH, spells were expensive, and those side effects were brutal.  However, the warriors were not  buying Weapon Based Martial Arts with bonus damage classes either -  a 3d6+1 sword strike was not easy to achieve.  Wizards are not overpowered in a vacuum - they can only be "overpowered" in comparison to their allies, and/or their opponents.

There are only two combat encounters, so I think it can be run in a four hour block.

I'm working on an outline for a demo adventure to run at Cons and FLAGS. 

The PCs are a group of young, new monster hunters who have just set up shop in Dogpatch, Iowa.  They have been marketing aggressively, getting their name out to all the local police & fire departments as well as the county sheriff's office.  
The adventure is divided into seven encounters.  Only three of these are combat encounters.  The rest are opportunities for the PCs to use their skills, interact with NPCs, and role play.  
 
One key to this adventure is that, while each PC has access to a variety of handguns, rifles, shotguns, and hundreds of rounds of conventional ammo for each, each PC has only twenty rounds of silver .45 ACP handgun ammo, twenty rounds of silver .308 rifle ammo, and ten rounds of silver 12 gauge shotgun ammo.  The adventure starts one day before the full moon. 

ENCOUNTER ONE 
Early in the morning, about 6:00 AM, the PCs get a call from the local sheriff's office - "Come out to the corn field across from the Howard Johnson's out on State Route 75.  There's something we need you to look at."
 
The PCs are met on the side of the highway by Deputy Sheriff James Whitehead.  He leads them into the corn field to a large trampled patch.  In the middle of the patch is a ten year old boy, dead.  He is wearing only pajama bottoms and is barefoot.  His abdomen has been torn open, and large gouges have been taken out of his legs, one bicep, and his buttocks.  Bloody footprints lead away from the trampled patch, through the corn field, and to a two story clapboard house.  
 
The front door to the house is open, and the living room window has been smashed out.  Their are curtains tangle in the bushes under the window, and there is broken glass on the lawn.  On the floor of the living room a middle aged man, dead.  His throat is torn out, and he has many defensive wounds on his arms, legs, and chest, similar to those received when fending off a knife attack.  Next to the body is half of a broken baseball bat.  The other half is on the far side of the living room.  The wood has clear teeth marks on it, as if from a large animal.  There are signs of struggle throughout the house, particularly the kitchen, the master bedroom, and the living room.  There are the shredded remains of a woman's blouse, slacks, and sneakers strune across the house.  A PER check will show that the woman's clothes have no blood on them.
 
Deputy Whitehead briefs the PCs - "The man is Jim Mason.  This farm is his, but he also works part time at the transmission shop downtown.  The boy is his son, Carl.  Jim lives here with his son and his wife, Elvira.  I put in a call to Bobby Menkin, the bartender at The Hole In The Wall, and he says Elvira never showed up for her waitress shift last night.  No phone call or nothing.  He says that just ain't like her."
 
Eventually a white Econovan with "Dogpatch C. M. E." on the side arrives.  Out steps an attractive redheaded woman, early '30s, wearing scrubs and a lab coat.  The lab coat has embroidery that reads "Dr. Rachael Guinevere, Medical Examiner."  She approaches one of the PCs, gestures toward the bodies and says "Are they going to get back up and eat me?"  However the PCs reply, she responds with "I need you to decapitate them."
 
While she displays no hint of fear, surprise, panic, or disgust, she flatly refuses to bag the bodies until the PCs decapitate them.  If the PCs question her behavior she will state "The Coroner's Office Rider on the Unearthly Forces contract requires decapitation by the contractors before the coroner enters the scene."  If they mention that they are not currently contracted then she will say "If you ever GET the contract, it will have a Coroner's Office Rider."  If the PCs refuse to decapitate the bodies then she will roll her eyes, mutter "Amateurs..." and do it herself with a camp axe she keeps in the center console of her van.
 
If the PCs question Deputy Whitehead, he makes it clear that he considers this "contractor business."  He mentions that Dogpatch County doesn't currently have an Unearthly Forces contractor in place, and he understands that it is a highly lucrative contract for whatever company wins it.  Handling this matter well should go a long way toward convincing the sheriff the PCs are the right crew for the job.
 
The PCs investigate the crime scene and make their follow-up plans.  Deputy Whitehead doesn't have any additional information for the PCs, but if asked he will provide the phone number for Bobby Menkin and the address of The Hole In The Wall.  
If the PCs call the phone number for Bobby, they get no answer.  If they call or go to the Hole In The Wall, they are told that it is Bobby's day off and he isn't expected back until tomorrow.

I think conversion is difficult, especially so when the systems have, on the surface, so many similarities.  It is easy for assumptions to be made that things equate when they do not really.  It is almost easier when the systems are widely divergent and then how certain things are done can be explained.
 
When it comes to characters, I think it is often better to take a character from the original system, strip out every mechanical reference that you can, leaving a highly descriptive version of the character and then apply the new system using that description.  It is likely to surprise you how doing that makes better use of the new system than looking to go direct from system to system.
 
Doc

Honest question here, but has anyone actually ever played with the HS Grimoire spells, plus going back to the 5th Ed spell books as well, as they are actually written/built? I honestly doubt most people have. I tried way back when with my first Fantasy Hero game set in the Turakian Age and after one session knew it would have to change, and after the second one I had to go back and we work all the spells the magical characters had. The spells, as written, make spellcasters useless. 
 
Just look at this example and spot the problem:
 
FireBolt: RKA 2d6, Area Of Effect (32m
Line; +½) (45 Active Points); OAF Expendable
(small gold rod tipped with garnets, Very Difficult
to obtain; -1½), Gestures (-¼), Incantations (-¼),
No Range (-½), Requires A Magic Roll (-½), Spell
(-½). Total cost: 10 points.
 
You see it? OAF Expendable. OAF Expendable. A gold rod tipped with garnets. And it is an Expendable Focus.
 
Even if you allow all the Magical characters to start with one of each focus item they need for each spell they know, that means they can cast Fire Bolt once. Once. Before they have to go out and find/build, or pay for a small gold rod tipped with garnets before casting that spell again. What? Unless you are allowing the players to start with dozens of each focus, the spell is useless. And is a mage going to carry around 12 small gold rods tipped with garnets? Those are probably very valuable (they are very difficult to obtain after all) so why not just sell them and make a ton of cash?
 
And that is the same for 99% of all spells in the book(s). Most have Expendable Focuses as part of their build, allowing for a huge point saving, but at the cost of making RAW spellcasting useless. I had to go back and rebuild/cost each spell the players wanted and change the focus to being not expendable. 
 
Anyway, end of rant about the spell builds in the Grimoires. 
 
Another thing to factor into your magic system and general campaign, is the fact that unlike D&D, magic users in Fantasy Hero generally don't suffer any of the limitations that the D&D ones have. A magic user in Fantasy Hero can wear armor. They can use swords and such if they spend the 2CP for WF. If they have a good OCV (which most will have since it is the same STAT used to hit with a spell as it is to hit with a sword) then a magic user isn't limited to just casting spells. When needed they can throw down next to the fighters. In fact if a spell caster is willing to sacrifice a spell or two they can get the WF common melee weapons, and Combat Luck, for 5 CP total. Then wear some leather armor or something not super heavy (assuming you are using encumbrance rules and that the magic user has a STR of 8-10) and they can now hold their own in hand to hand combat, plus cast spells when needed. Sure, they won't be a good as the pure fighter, but they be at least as good as the thief who spent a bunch of points on stealth and lockpicking, Traps, etc...
 

Breaking away from the D&D standard (which I think is a decent goal for Fantasy Hero — if you want to play D&D, just play D&D) requires coming up with your own game balance.  It’s a weightier question than you might think at first, because you have to decide how your world works and what effect characters should have.
 
Some fantasy mages are like super-fighters.  The wizard is not only an awesome swordsman, he’s also got all sorts of screw-you powers that normal people can’t get.  If you want to simulate this kind of fantasy story, you’ll make different decisions than if you are duplicating a different story.
 
Some wizards don’t have access to the full D&D wizard suite.  Thulsa Doom (in the movie anyway) was a warrior who could turn into a big snake.  He also had a lot of followers and he could shoot a snake from a bow.  Huh?  And I think he had some sort of hypnotic vision.  He basically had two or three good tricks that nobody knew he could do.  Definitely not a normal D&D wizard.
 
You could have some sort of zombie lord who can build a mighty army by animating the dead, but otherwise he has no spell magic at all.  That’s his one magic power.  For someone like that, it isn’t important for him to have all the blasty stuff, he’s just a normal adventurer type who happens to command an army.  He doesn’t even need a spell.  You could make him a “sorcerer” by buying undead followers just as easily.
 
Most of these won’t be appropriate for whatever game you run.  But they may be great for somebody’s game.  You have to decide how you want your world to look.

Why, from the spell research he has been doing in the background.  He's been spending some of his free time on the road comparing his fireball he copied from one manual with a small selective area of effect, with the large area delayed blast he copied from another to try to combine the two.  When he has down time between adventures, he goes buys more books, experiments, tests and eventually he figures out his new spell.  But that is boring to game out, so none of this is actually role played - it happens off stage between adventures, etc.   And we measure when he has had enough research time by his experience gained, so he does  not get access to these new spells until he levels up.
 
Meanwhile, the Fighter uses spare time to practice, and seeks out trainers and sparring partners from whom he can learn during longer down time periods,.
 
 
I'd have to say I never liked the early D&Dism that, because fighters eclipse wizards at low levels, and wizards eclipse fighters at high levels, we have a balanced game.  I think what we have is unbalance that shifts over time.
 
Bob has 30 spells and skill rolls of 13- and 14-, so he has a 10- or 11- roll to pull off a 2d6 FireBolt RKA.  To do that, he has to Concentrate and spend Extra END and a full phase action (and gesture and incant and have his focus, but anything preventing those would also impede our warrior).  Meanwhile, our Warrior keeps full DCV, only spends END for STR and can swing his sword repeatedly - and he has 3 skill levels to boot (4 points for WF: all common melee and ranged weapons and 9 for 3 skill levels with his favoured weapons).  Now, if they are separated from all their equipment, who will find some thing useful first, the fighter who is proficient in all common weapons, or the wizard who needs a magical wand or a grimoire of spells or a pouch of spell components?
 
By the way, Bob is not even able to swing a staff - he spent all 13 points on two magic skills, the same as Warrior spent on basic combat skills.  Who were we thinking is overpowered, again?
 
But maybe that base skill roll only gets you half a dozen basic, cantrip-type spells, generally capping out at 15 - 20 AP.  Want more spells?  Study more - buy up your roll and, as your knowledge increases, you gain access to more powerful spells.  Taking Massey's list, maybe you get:
 
KS: Magic, base roll-
Detect Magic, -0; Detect Poison, -0; Dancing Lights, -0;
Mage Hand, -1; Prestidigitation, -1; Magic Aura, -1
 
+1 to the roll Detect Secret Doors, -1; Detect Undead, -1; Feather Fall, -1; Magic Missile, -2;
 
Another +1 gets Obscuring Mist, -2; Comprehend Languages, -2; Silent Image, -2;Blur, -2; 
 
Then   See Invisibility, -2; Spider Climb, -2; Protection from Evil, -3;Sleep, -3;; 
 
And next Web, -3; Detect Thoughts, -3; Knock, -3; 
 
That's base skill +4 to get that full "starter pack".
 
You want fire magic because so far you feel a little light on offensive abilities.
 
KS: Fire Magic Base Roll
Light, -0; Flare, -1; Spark, -0;
 
+1 Burning Hands, -2; and a utility spell or two
 
Another +1 Scorching Ray, -3; Flame Blade, -3; another utility spell

Another +1 Fireball, -4; and another couple of spells
 
But that's +3 to the roll, so a decent investment.
 
Let me toss in another curve ball - maybe your "Fire Magic" or "Any Other Magic" skill can NEVER exceed your Magic skill.  You have to buy up the Basic skill (and get those bland universal spells) in order to by up the skills in specific magic orders that will allow access to other spells.  And maybe you don't get as many "Base Magic" spells at each +1, and only get one, maybe two, from each focused School +1, if you want fewer spells. As a sweetener, maybe the low level ones get a bit easier (less limitations) or better (more AP) as you buy up the skills.
 
So, do you buy several low level skill rolls, and have a variety of low power spells, or specialize and build up more power with less breadth?
 
Given the spells themselves are free, players can't complain too much about how many they get, or how powerful they are, so make magic as rare as you want.
 
Oh, and maybe spell research only allows you to develop spells to the rough power level you have attained in that type of magic, so a base Fire Magic roll is not nearly enough to figure out how to cast a Delayed Blast Swarm of Fireballs, no matter how much xp you may be prepared to pay.  You have to master Fire Magic first, and you are a mere initiate.