LoneWolf

In a world where everything is done by manual labor, there are probably a lot of 18 STR characters. In a world where typing speed is more important to earning a living, there will be few people with an 18 STR.

Having spells without having the END to cast them is pointless. If your REC is too low you cannot maintain the spells, and takes you too long to regain the END. You could of course buy all your spells with reduced END or 0 END, but that makes them more expensive. Many GM’s require spells to cost some END, so 0 END may not even be an option. If the GM is tracking END and using LTE spell casters need to worry about END usage. Spell casters in my experience tend to burn through END more than any other type of character. Unless your combat only lasts a turn or so END becomes the limiting factor on spell casters. Unless you want your spell caster to be a 12 second wonder you need to boost END and REC. Prior to 6th edition Boosting your primary stats was the most efficient way to do that. @Christopher R Taylor Go back to some of those old characters and look at their stats. If you bought up your PD, ED, REC and END try rewriting them with boosted STR and END and see if they come out cheaper. I think you will find that investing in the primary stats does not actually reduce the points you have for your spells. Under 5th edition Buying a 36 END and 8 REC cost 16 point. If I buy an 18 STR and 18 CON and sell back my STUN to 20 it also costs me 16 points. But I have 2 extra PD and ED and I am harder to stun, can lift more and make STR and CON rolls easier.

I think the real origin of the squishy wizard is actually D&D. In the Lord of the Ring, it was Gandalf who faced off against the Balrog not Aragorn. Allanon in the Sword of Shannara is certainly not squishy. In Russian history Rasputin was anything but frail. According to the stories he was poisoned twice, shot in the chest, but still survived. He was then shot and beaten but still was not dead, finally they wrapped him up and tossed him into a freezing river. That does not sound squishy to me. If you are using 5th edition with figured stats wizards are going to buy up their CON to equal that of a warrior and if they are smart will also buy up their STR to at least 13. In fact, buying it up to 18 would actually be advantages for the wizard. A wizard like any other character is going to buy up his PD & ED. Spells use a lot of END, so he will want a good END and REC. To buy 4 PD, 4 ED, 8 REC, and 36 END cost 20 points. If I buy up my CON and STR to 18 it costs 24 points and I get 28 STUN as well. The math makes the idea of the squishy wizard a bad assumption when using figured stats. This is probably one of the best arguments for ditching figured stats. It seems pretty clear that the idea of the wizard as a squishy character is a false assumption until at least 6th edition. Prior to 6th edition, it would actually be more expensive build the “traditional” squishy wizard. Even in 6th edition there is no real reason to, but at least you are not penalized for doing so. Neither fiction nor Hero game mechanics give any reason why wizards should be squishy. In game systems like D&D on the other hand it is nearly unavoidable.

Why are you assuming the wizard is squishy? Even without wearing armor there is no reason the wizard needs to have less defenses than the warrior. For about 14 points I can have a spell that gives me 10 DEF and 50% damage reduction vs non-magic physical attacks. The wizard will probably not have as much PD & ED as the warrior, but will still buy it up, so probably has 6 instead of 8. Since the wizard is not wearing heavy armor his DCV is probably going to be higher so is less likely to be hit than the warrior. The warrior in full plate and 8 PD will on the average take 3.5 Body and 12.75 stun from a 3d6+1 KA. My Wizard takes .75 Body and 6.375 Stun, if the wizard is wearing DEF 3 armor, he on the average takes no BODY and 4.875 STUN. I am not saying every wizard will have higher defenses than every warrior. But there is no reason they have to have less defenses. If I remove the No Range from the drain it only increases the cost by 2 points. At that point even if I am a “Squishy Wizard” I don’t need to be in melee range. The other thing to consider is the fact that it is a lot easier to defend against a warrior than it is a wizard. The vast majority of warrior’s attacks are physical attacks. Outside of magic items almost all warriors will be doing either normal physic damage or killing physical damage. You may get the occasional martial flash or nerve strike, but those are fairly rare. If I want to defend against a warrior all I need to do is to boost my PD and Resistant PD. I don’t even need to worry about ED much less any exotic defenses. To avoid being hit I only need to worry about DCV. With a wizard you have to worry about the exotic defenses. The wizard also has more options when they are figuring out how to affect their target. In addition to DCV the wizard can use area of effect attacks to ignore DCV and target your DMCV instead of DCV.

If you want to do a fair comparison you need to compare similar attacks. Assuming the wizard has a 10 STR a 2 1/2D6 will put the damage to 3d6+1. If I put the limitations OAF expendable (easy to replace), Gestures, Incantations and Requires a Magic Roll it costs 13. That does not include the magic skill, or buying up the INT or any other stat. The magic skill will be used for a lot of things besides 1 attack spell, so the cost is spread out among multiple spells. If the Wizard has a STR higher than 10 they can reduce the cost of spell and still keep the same damage. While the wizard can match the standard damage of a warrior without too much trouble, that is not where they shine. Where the wizard has the advantage is in unusual attacks. For 8 points I can have a 3d6 Drain STR with OAF, No Range, Requires Skill Roll, Incantations, Gestures. That spell will be devastating against most warriors. Losing 10 STR is probably going mean the character does not have the STR to wield his weapon properly so in addition to doing less damage they take penalties to hit. It will also probably cause them to sufferer increased DCV penalties due to the weight of their armor and other gear. It will also slow them down and increase the amount of END used.

If the GM wants to create a magic system where wizards cannot use armor or weapons, then the problem is caused by the GM. Even in that case paying cash for equipment can still give the wizard equipment. In a world where magic works there will be some wizards who will create magic items for sale. This is not any different than a smith creating weapons and armor. They may be expensive, but then so should heavy armor. It took a lot of time and effort to create a suit of full plate. Even without magic items components still cost money, especially if you are using difficult to replace expendable foci. You start using those and spells get even cheaper than they already are. If you want a brick type character in Fantasy Hero a wizard is much better at pulling it off than a warrior. With things like growth and density increase it is cheaper to build a high STR character as a wizard than it is a warrior. One level of growth and 3 levels of density increase will boost a characters STR by +30. Buy up the STR to 20 on this character and I have a STR of 50 giving me a 10d6 punch. In Hero system it cost the wizard the same to buy OCV and skill levels. This means a wizard can fight as well as a warrior for the same points.

Nothing in the game prevents a wizard from using weapons or wearing armor. My wizard in one of Gauntlets games probably had some of the best defense of the group. I started out wearing light armor (DEF 3) but ended up with 0 weight chain (DEF 6). The rest of the group wanted the heavier DEF armor we found. The heavy fighter preferred the DEF 10 hardened armor to the 0-weight chain. I also had a robe that gave me an additional 5 DEF for a total of 11 resistant DEF and 17 DEF total. In addition to this I had a spell that gave me -3 DC of both physical and energy damage negation and 10 points of mental and power defense. I also had a magic staff that in addition to boosting my magic was also an enchanted weapon. It did an extra 2d6 above a normal quarter staff and added +2 OCV to attack, or to DCV to defend. The character has very defensive staff based martial art for when he could not cast spells. It had only 3 maneuvers a martial block, a marital strike and a takedown. Since I had a decent amount of attack spells my OCV was bought to max (8). The ring of protection I wore gave me an additional +3 DCV, so the character had a high DCV. This was a pretty high-powered campaign that had been going on for a while, so the other party members were equally well equipped. But in the beginning of the campaign, I managed to take down a knight in full plate with my staff in one shot. I will admit it was a critical hit to the head in a campaign using both hit location and critical hits. The heavy fighter in the group was struggling with an identical foe. At that point all I had was an ordinary staff and some DEF 3 armor plus my spells. Hero system is not D&D and Fantasy Hero characters are radically different from D&D characters. It is a lot easier to build a hybrid character in Hero than it is in any D&D based system. The fact of the matter is that wizards benefit from free equipment just as much as warriors.

Trigger is an advantage in 6th edition. The details can be found in 6E V1 Page 349. Other advantages may also be helpful. Duke’s suggestion about indirect and continuous would also be useful depending on how you want it to work. If the GM is willing you could set the trigger as any enemy within range. These powers could be very expensive. It may end up that your character may not be able to afford it, or it may go over campaign limits. Keep in mind that the game requires balance so sometimes you may not be able to buy a power even if you can write it up.

Using a summon is not the way to build this. Off the top of my head it would seem like this would be best built with a trigger that automatically and instantly resets.

I tend to agree trying to convert something from another system to Hero creates problems. Using a character from another system for the concept is probably ok, but not trying to rewrite the character into Hero. The big problem is that the game systems operate differently, and you will never get everything. This also occurs when a player wants to play a character from fiction. Don’t try and play a character from a book or a movie. You are never going to be able to get a character that does everything the fictional character does. Instead play a character based on that character.

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

You are kind of missing the whole point of my post. It is quite easy for the warrior with martial arts, talents and skill levels to boost their damage. But doing so cost points that the wizard does not have to spend. In the end both characters will have probably spent similar amount of point to achieve similar results. That was the point of my post. The warrior does not have to cast a spell but is operating under other constraints. Both of the examples I used are not anything special and should not cause any problems for the GM. I could change the special effect of the sword to a diamond blade and have it go against PD and the argument would still be valid. The fact that the wizard was able to match the warrior while spending fewer points shows the idea that a warrior has the advantage because the wizard has to spend points for his spells is false. If anything, the warrior is the one who is at a disadvantage. In my opinion that is why talents were added. The warrior's ability to buy things like weapon master, deadly blow and combat luck are to compensate for the fact the wizard has an advantage.

A spell casters real advantage is the ability to use non-standard attacks. The 2d6 HKA of a warrior always goes against resistant PD and in most cases has no advantage. With the right weapon you might get AP or a +1 Stun multiple, but that is about it. The weapon also has a STR MIN so you need near a 20 STR just to use it. Take a wizard with the ability to create a sword made of flame. He buys it as a 1d6 HKA. The spell has the following limitations OAF expendable easily replaced (Small piece of flint), requires a skill roll, incantations, gestures. The sword goes against ED instead of PD and cost 5 points. If the wizard has a 15 STR it does 2d6 damage. Adding the advantage AP increases the cost to 6 and means I need a 17 STR to get it to 2d6. My wizard also has a STR spell that gives him +7 STR for 2 points. Compare this to a warrior using a Greatsword. The warrior needs 17 STR to use the Greatsword which costs 7 points. He also needs WF with blades for 1 point. He gets the Greatsword for no points and can do 2d6 damage targeting PD. Both characters spent 8 points and have the same STR score. The wizards attack targets ED instead of PD and gets to cut the ED in half unless the target has hardened defenses. The warrior is visibly armed and draws attention for being dangerous. The wizard is carrying some flint and steel (the expendable focus for the STR spell) to light fires. The wizard is coming out ahead in spite of the fact he has to pay for his spells. The cost of the magic skill and booting it up high enough will be an additional cost for the wizard, but that investment gets him so much versatility and power it is well worth the points. Looking at it further the warrior is already near the normal maximum for STR where the wizard can still buy 10 more points. This makes it easier for the wizard to increase his damage. The wizard can also simply pay the points to increase the damage of the spells. for an additional 10 points I can increase the damage on the spell to 2d6 and the STR to +20 to boost the damage to 4d6 AP HKA. For the warrior to boost the damage he needs skill levels, martial maneuvers or talents. Weapon Mastery for a very limited group costs 12 points to add +1d6, it costs 18 points to get 6 skill levels for a second dice. At this point the wizard has spent less than half the points for a better attack. The skill levels do give the warrior more versatility, but the wizard has 18 points unspent so can easily purchase 6 skill levels and now has better damage. The idea the wizard is at a disadvantage because he has to purchase his spells is an illusion. In reality he will often have the advantage of having way more versatility. This is not even factoring in the fact the wizard has a huge advantage out of combat.

If I remember correctly that was more of a character creation suggestion, rather than a rule. It also only applied to starting characters. That is the same thing as a caster starting out with their foci. If you latter picked up a skill level, you did not have a free weapon drop from the sky. Also, if you lost the weapon or it was destroyed you had to acquire a new weapon by purchasing it.

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

That is going to turn a FH game into a Champions game. What I would do would be to track the equipment but not have the character pay for it. That way you have an idea of their power level, but keep the feel of a FH game. It also allows the characters to lose equipment without taking away huge amounts of points.

In most cases secondary stats were bought up from the figured values. I have never had a character with a 20 STR that only had 4 PD. Even REC had to be bought up. A character with a 20 STR and 20 Con had 8 REC. Even at 2 SP a heroic character will use 10 END per turn (4 for STR and at least 1 for movement). If they have 3 or higher SPD they will burn even more. If they have a 4 SPD they will burn through their 40 END about 30 seconds. Going up to 10 REC means you last an extra turn or so. That is assuming they have nothing else using END. Figured stats are kind of like minimum wage, they give you something, but not enough to survive. You still need to buy them up from the starting values, so how is that any quicker or less mental effort? Too me adding +6 REC takes the same amount of mental effort as adding +2.

Be careful when trying to convert from D&D to hero. It seems like it should work, but for the most part it often ends up being very difficult. The rules systems just don’t match and often what is a low level power in D&D is extremely expensive in Hero. Just as often the reverse is also true. Every time I have seen someone try this it ends up taking more time and effort than it would be to start from the ground up. Real weapon is not appropriate, it means the weapon can be broken and needs maintenance.

Not sure even an OIF will work because and inaccessible focus can be taken away out of combat. Unless you can take the power away for long periods of time it should not have the focus limitation. Can you use skill levels, talents and maneuvers for the specific weapon with the Mindblade? If so, being able to disarmed can be considered part of the special effect and not be considered a limitation. If you can create any weapon, you will need a couple of advantages on it. First is going to be variable special effect at the + ¼ level, this allows you to change the damage type. The Second is going to be variable advantage at the +1 level (allowing for a +1/2 advantage). This will allow you to add things like armor piercing, increased stun multiple, ranged. You will also probably need to purchase some stretching if you want to create longer weapons. You will not need much stretching, 2m should be more than enough. If you can do both normal and killing damage you will have to purchase both a HTH attack and a HKA. Being able to create any weapon is going to be pretty expensive. It might be better to be able to create a small group of weapons instead.

Check your math on my way. The base cost is 28 +14 (Active cost) to go through an additional 7 DEF for a total of 13 DEF. The cost of the extra DEF is 7 points not 12 (14/2 = 7). That puts it to 35 not 40. You are paying 1 point per extra DEF you can move through. Being able to tunnel through more than 6 DEF should cost more than tunneling through 6 DEF. Your method cost the same as tunneling through 6 DEF.

I would probably do a partially limited power. Buy the movement and 6 PD with no limitation and buy extra PD with a custom limitation like Doc is recommending. I would place the value of the limitation higher if doing this way because it is more restrictive on what it is being applied for. About a -1 limitation seems right. The cost work out pretty close either way but this is a more accurate way of doing it.

Under drain it specifically states you can reduce a characteristic into the negatives only for purposes of calculating how long the characteristic recovers. The only exception is negative BODY. There are rules for what happens when each primary stat is drained to 0. Usually, you have trouble performing actions.

For the most part the system is modular enough that it does not have to be that complex. By choosing which optional rules to use the GM can control how complicated the game gets. So, really the game is only as complicated as the GM makes it. Most Hero veterans like complicated games. As to character creation that is going to depend on the nature of the campaign. A Champions campaign is probably going to the most complicated for character creation, whereas a science fiction game will probably be the least complicated. A Fantasy Hero is probably somewhere in between. Superheroes tend to have more unique powers, so each character has to be created from the ground up. A character in a science fiction campaign is usually choosing from existing material so has less unique content. In a science fiction campaign the GM usually creates the races and technology, so the players are simply choosing from a list of option. A Fantasy Hero game will be similar to the science fiction game except spell caster may be creating spells. Most GM have some guidelines on how magic works so it will be less complicated than creating superpowers, but more than just choosing of a list of technology and races. There will of course be exception to the rule based on the campaign the GM is running. I don’t think you can really have a decent superhero game without having a complicated character creation process. There are just too many different character concepts in this type of game. When the game has to be able accommodate aliens, super science, mutant, ninja and magic it is going to get messy.

In 6th edition the book outlines what happens when a characteristic is 0. In the case of DEX, the character has to make a DEX to make any action requiring physical movement. A STR of 0 means the character is at 1/2 DCV and has to make a STR roll perform an action. In the case of STR every x2 mass the character has the penalties start 5 pts earlier. What I proposed was something similar for the COM stat. If having a DEX of 0 means you need to make a roll to act having a COM of 0 should have a similar effect. As to finding a date I am sure that being extremely wealthy would easily counter that (not that it would apply to me, but I don't have a 0 COM.).

So, with a 0 COM sometimes people might make fun of me, and I might have a hard time finding a date. Any other stat with a score of 0 has a very good chance of completely incapacitating the character. In all cases making an action that is in any way connected to the stat requires a stat roll that has about a 16% chance of succeeding. Unless you are going to do something like requiring a character with a 0 COM to make a COM roll in order to interact with any living creature the drawback of a 0 COM is not even close to the drawbacks of any other primary stat. The other thing with COM is it is measuring something that is extremely subjective. Different cultures and times all have different ideas of what is attractive. At one time a woman who was overweight was considered more attractive than someone who was fit. What you are trying to do is to put an absolute value on something with considerable variance.