PhilFleischmann

A picture is worth a thousand words. If you're concerned about the expense of illustrations, consider the benefit. How much delevopment time and page space does a thousand-word description take? Compare that to an illustration and what it gets you. I include maps as one type of illustration. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a map is probably worth ten thousand. And make sure the pictures match any text descriptions given (unlike many 4th Ed. books and the cover of Champions). If possible keep character and monster illustrations on the same page as their write-ups. Or at least provide labeling captions so there's no doubt as to who's who. And speaking of captions, you could add a lot of flavor with captions on action scenes and landscapes, etc.: "On the fifth day of the battle of Rhytoughm, the demons were unleashed, destroying all hope..." "The mystics of Ulim practice elaborate and beatiful rituals. Strangers are welcome to watch or participate, but remember not to speak until Sreuzan opens her eyes."

In my campaign world, there is a mysterious group of earth-element wizards known to the lay people as the "Dun Wizards." One spell they have allows them to merge into the surface of stone, soil, or masonry. The Dun Wizard appears to turn into a relief sculpture of himself on the surface of, say, a stone wall. They can still move and talk, but they can't "seep through" to the other side of the wall (but if they walk to an end of the wall, such as a doorway, they can go around it to the other side). This is bought as Desolid, Can't pass through solid materials -1/2, Harmed by anything that could harm the material they've merged into. I guess this one isn't that weird, but I'll include it anyway: Dream Manipulation - Mind Control (lots of dice) with gradual effect (takes weeks or maybe even months) The victim will be haunted in his dreams which slowly and subtly alter his personality, attitudes, or actions, by leaving subconcious emotions leftover from the dreams. "The duke doesn't seem like himself lately. He's been having nightmares..." Here's one I originally did as a superhero power, but I liked it so much I made it into a fantasy spell: You're in the heat of battle (or wherever) and suddenly time seems to stand still. Everyone around you suddenly seems frozen in place. You hear shouting and sounds of confusion. Someone invisible bumps into you. Something invisible hits you... This is bought as simple Darkness to all Sight, with a strange special effect. It simply freezes the visual image of everything in the area affected. No one is actually frozen in place. If you take a few steps forward and turn around. You'll see yourself standing stock still. If you then look down, you won't see your own body. It like being in a large hologram that covers up the real image of what's there, with an image of what was there at the moment the spell started. Great for confusing enemies, and Personal Immunity is nice too.

I think you've out-wierded me, but here are some I've done: The "human camel" spell, used by a small desert tribe: While you're in the city and food is plentiful, get yourself nice and fat. On your journey, take out your scimitar and slice off a piece of your belly (it does no damage, thanks to the spell). This chunk of flesh turns into food. It's a create food spell that requires excess body mass. Each time you use the spell, you lose a little weight.

I think you're overlooking an interesting possibility here: If alchemy and other forms of magic are real, why not let the church have its own type of divine magic as well? Let the priests actually lay on hands to heal wounds and cure deseases, receive prophetic visions, exorcise demons, turn undead, etc. This adds some balance of power between the church and the wizards. They may even have some magic which renders them immune to non-religious magic. If you're a peasant, who are you going to support: the guy who can transmute metals, or the guy who can restore your health? Many of the early alchemists were in fact Christians. They wanted to create gold so they wouldn't have to go to war and kill others for it. A good and peaceful idea. Unfortunately, they didn't study economics enough to realise that gold would lose value if it could be easily created. This idea reminds me of a campaign I've been wanting to run for a long time: a modern fantasy campaign in which all the myths, folktales and superstitions are real. The idea is partially based on a short story I read in Dragon many years ago called "Wear Wolf". Werewolves and Vampires are real. Christians can keep vampires at bay with a cross. Jews are immune to vampirism and their blood is poisonous to a vampire. Muslims remain in complete control of their mental faculties if and when they become werewolves. Etc. All real religions have real "magical" properties.

If it's literally at the mercy of the winds, you might consider not buying any movement for it at all. Or perhaps 1" Flight, Only to Prevent Falling to the Ground. NCC is also a good option. And also take a look at Gliding. How would you buy a "seaweed critter"? It floats in the sea but has no means of propulsion. I'd be inclined to not buy it any swimming at all. or just 1", Only to Float. It only gets moved when the waves and currents move it. I don't remember it there's an example of a unsteered Hot Air Balloon in TUV, or a liferaft with no oars.

How bout AE entangle? Perhaps with a limitation "Entangled Targets can still move, but at half rate" (-1/2?) That way, breaking out of the entangle doesn't hurt the mist creature at all.

Your example isn't really what we're talking about. The idea was limitations on switching the slots, not on using them. Yes, Charges is a little different from most other limitations, but the proper comparison is: 40 Reserve 60 points, 8 charges to switch (-1/2) 6u 12d6 EB 6u 4d6 RKA ---- 52 Points - this is the value according to Steve Long's answer in the FAQ. This power can be used as many times as you want, but you can only switch back and forth between the two slots 8 times. Frex: Use the EB ten times, switch to RKA, use it ten times, switch back to EB, repeat 7 more times. Compared to: 60 Reserve 60 points 4u 12d6 EB 4 charges (-1/2 - half the usual value of 4 charges) 4u 4d6 RKA 4 charges (-1/2 - again) 68 points - This is the value according to my recommendation. Each slot can be allocated four times, and then used as much as you want. And as long as I'm posting, here's one other example of a benefit from putting the switching limitations on the slots: You can put different limitations on each slot! Example: A mage-type character has a number of spells in a multipower.(Assume for simplicity that all slots are ultras and they all use up the entire reserve.) 60 Reserve 6 u Slot A - an everyday spell that the mage uses all the time and has easy access to. 5 u Slot B, Extra Time-Full Phase to switch to (-1/4) - a fairly easy spell that takes a little time to recall it to the front of the mage's mind and use. 4 u Slot C, Concentration to switch to (-1/2) - this spell is a little more difficult to call up. The mage is somewhat vulnerable while getting in tune to cast it. 3 u Slot D, No conscious control to Switch to (-1) - this spell cannot be called up by the mage at all. His diety, or perhaps luck, grants it to him every once in a while. 2 u Slot E, Side Effects to switch to, Costs Lots of END to switch to, Expendible Expensive Focus to switch to, (Total -2) - this is a spell that the mage will only use in emergencies, because calling it to his mind hurts him, fatigues him, and requires him to destroy a large precious stone each time. Once he makes this expensive sacrifice, in both wealth and health, he can cast the spell freely as many times as he wants. So he switches to slot E, taking the side effect etc., uses the spell over and over until he's sure he won't need it again for a while, and then finds himself needing slot A. So he switches back to slot A - no problem at all, a standard MP slot. He uses slot A a several times, and then a situation arises where he needs slot E again. If he switches back to slot E, he'll have to make the sacrifice again.

Yes. I'm looking at it from a standpoint of fairness and game balance - the principles on which the game is built. You're looking at it from a standpoint of obedience to an individual ruling by a fallible game designer/owner, who has never made any attempt to justify or explain his ruling. That's OK. You don't have to be interested in logic and reason. The harm is that it isn't fair. The character isn't paying for what he gets. I understand that fairness may not be important to you, but it is to me and many HERO players. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I play HERO as opposed to some other system. You don't have to read it. Only those who are interested in logically figuring out what a power construct should cost based on fairness should read it. Only those open to possibly changing their minds could benefit from reading it. My argument is not directed at you specifically. It's directed at anyone who is trying to come up with a fair price for a Multipower with limitations on the switching of slots. If it's going nowhere for you, then stop reading/posting to it. It's not up to you to end an argument on this public forum just because it doesn't interest you. No. My argument stems from my own beliefs. It has nothing to do with what your view. I kept responding to you because you kept arguing against my claims. I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you did so because you found my logic to be flawed. I now understand that you aren't interested in the logic of the situation. You didn't find a flaw in my logic, you simply didn't bother following it at all. This is the kind of statement which led me to my misunderstanding. My argument "breaking down" and "meaning nothing to you" are not the same thing. My argument means nothing to a goldfish either, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that it breaks down. The only thing that has broken down is my communication with you. I still find this discussion worthwhile, because there are other people who read this thread. ----- 60 4d6 RKA -- Costs 60 points 20 Multipower 60-Point Reserve, 8- Activation to change slots (-2) 6 u 4d6 RKA 6 u Some other power -- Costs 32 points according to Steve's answer in the FAQ 12 Multipower 60-Point Reserve, 8- Activation to change slots (-2), 1 Charge on changing the slots (i.e. you can only make one attempt per day to reallocate the MP) (-2) 6 u 4d6 RKA 1 u Some other 60-AP power, 10x END cost (-4) -- Costs 19 points according to Steve's answer in the FAQ Wouldn't you like a 4d6 RKA for only 19 points? Would you like to face a villian with a 19 point 4d6 RKA?

Actually, it's not whether the powers are instant, but whether the limitations on the powers have an intant effect. If the power is Force Field (not Instant), and the limitation is Concentration Throughout. Then 6 & 8 are still true. But if the limitation is Concentration to Activate, then you're right. And sure enough, Concentration to Activate has half the lim value as Concentration Throughout!

The "u" and "m" designations have been around since first edition. Even though "ultra" and "multi" don't mean very much to newer players, they're still used. They work well enough because "Fixed" and "Flexible" both start with "F." So we need some other letters to use for abbreviations.

I'm not familiar with the Ferrigno Hercules, but I do know the Schwartzenegger "Hercules in New York," which was intentionally campy, and stars another Arnold alongside the governor - Stang. Unfortuenately, the funniest part of this movie is the glaring difference between the dubbed voice and the real guy's voice. I kind of liked Clash of the Titans. I thought it was pretty good for the time (pre-CGI), except for the changes they made to the actual mythological story. Oh, and the R2D2-ripoff mechanical owl. There's another thread for you: How many R2D2 ripoff characters can you name? There was quite a spate of them in the late 70's and early 80's. Tweeky, W1K1, the owl, there was one in "The Black Hole"... And the RotK musical cartoon was pretty good. The original plan was to do the entire LotR, but I guess they didn't get the budget. It goes along with the Hobbit cartoon they did. And what's wrong with singing orcs? Take any musical - the bad guy songs are often the best ones. It's fun when the villain sings. Their songs almost always have much more character and style and memorability than the often plain boring ballads sung by the romantic leads.

Oh, and one other thing: Nothing I said above contradicts anything in the HERO System Fifth Edition book. It only contradicts one answer given in the FAQ.

My ego isn't on the line here. Nor is HERO Games politics. Rather than acusing me of blasphemy against the holy word of Steve, or saying that I'm in the vast minority of opinion, just tell me where my logic is wrong. This is going to be long, but I'm trying to write out my logical argument as carefully and methodically as possible. I've numbered (or lettered) each statement, so you can refer to them easily and point out exactly where my reasoning has gone astray. First, some general statements about the system: A) The HERO System’s greatness largely comes from the ideas and principles it is based on. Among of these is the principle that more points spent yields more effective power; fewer points spent yields less effective power; and equal points spent yields roughly equal power. This principle is stated explicitly on page 5 of FREd, bottom of the left column, and can be summed up as “You get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get.†a. Yes, there are individual examples of power constructs that violate this principle. This is because the HERO System is not perfect, and neither is any other gaming system. Such inequitable power constructs are often refered to as “abusive†or “munchkin†as things to be avoided/forbidden by the GM. b. The existence of violations of this principle does not invalidate the principle. Just as the existence of crime does not invalidate the laws broken. C) If two equally useful constructs have significantly different point costs, or if two constructs with the same point cost have significantly different usefulness, and both are built according to the rules, then that represents a flaw in the rules. Again, see FREd, p. 5, bottom of the left column. D) Another principle is flexibility. The system should be able to build any power, skill, talent, perk, or ability that you can imagine. This is explicitly stated on page 2 of FREd, first paragraph. The phrase, “you can’t do that,†should not come up in the system. Instead, it is permissible to say, “you can do that, but it might cost more than you’re willing to spend.†a. “You can’t do that†may come up in particular genres, campaign worlds, or games, but not in the system as a whole. E) If there is a power or ability that cannot be constructed with the rules, that represents a flaw in the rules. F) If these principles are abandoned, the system loses some of its greatness. These principles are a large part of the reason why HERO Games calls the HERO System “The Ultimate Gamers Toolkit†and why Steve Long called it “the Best Game System There Is.†(FREd, p. 1) G) The rules are those in FREd. H) The FAQ does not carry the same weight as FREd. The FAQ is changed and updated occasionally, and in some cases directly contradicts the rules in FREd. I) There is no mention in FREd of Limitations on switching slots in a Multipower. a. Just because they aren’t specifically mentioned, doesn’t mean that “you can’t do that.†b. Assuming you can have limitations on switching slots in a Multipower, the value and application of those limitations should result in a fair and balanced point cost (per B and C, above). Now, on to the specific reasoning about Multipower Slot-Switching Limitations: For ease of reference, we can adopt the following terms for use in examples: * A single 60-point power with no Limitations (60 Real/60 Active) will be referred to as the “Single Power†or “SP†* A Multipower with a 60-point Reserve with no Limitations and two 60-point Fixed slots will be referred to as the “Standard Multipower†or “SMP.†* A Multipower with a 60-Active Point Reserve with –1 worth of limitations on its use, and two 60-Active Point Fixed slots (also with –1 worth of limitations on use) will be referred to as the “Limited Multipower†or “LMP.†* A Multipower with a 60-Active Point Reserve, and two 60-Active Point Fixed slots with –1 worth of limitations on use that aren’t applied to the reserve (varying limitations [like the “group of guns†example, p. 207], charges, or the like) will be referred to as the “Limited Slots Multipower†or “LSMP.†* A Multipower with a 60-Active Point Reserve, and two 60-Active Point Fixed slots, with the same limitations as the Limited Multipower, not on the use of the powers, but rather on how/when the reserve can be switched from one slot to the other, will be referred to as the “Hard-to-Switch Multipower†or “HtSMP.†1) The Single Power is less useful than the Standard Multipower. a) And indeed, the rules agree, charging 60 points for the SP and 60+6+6=72 points for the SMP. 2) The Limited Multipower is less useful than the Standard Multipower. a) And again, the rules agree. The LMP costs 60/2+6/2+6/2=36 points. 3) The Limited Slot Multipower is less useful than the Standard Multipower, but more useful than the Limited Multipower. a) And the rules agree. The LSMP costs 60+6/2+6/2=66 points. 4) The Standard Multipower is more useful than the Hard-to-Switch Multipower. The SMP can be switched freely but the HtSMP has a restriction on switching the slots. 5) Therefore, the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost less than the Standard Multipower. 6) The Limited Multipower is less useful than the Hard-to-Switch Multipower. This is because the limitation applies every time the LMP is used, but only each time the HtSMP is switched. With the HtSMP, you could use one slot five times, switch to the other slot, use it five times, and switch back. The limitation only affected you twice even though you used the power ten times. With the LMP, you’d have been subject to the limitation ten times. 7) Therefore the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than the Limited Multipower. 8) For the same reason as (6), the Limited Slot Multipower is less useful than the Hard-to-Switch Multipower. 9) Therefore the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than the Limited Slot Multipower. 10) The Single Power is less useful than the Hard-to-Switch Multipower. The SP is only one power, but the HtSMP gives you a choice of two. Even though there’s a restriction on switching, at least you’ve got the option. If you left it on one slot all the time, you’re no worse off than if you just had the SP. 11) Therefore the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than the Single Power. 12) From (5) we derive that the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost less than 72 points. 13) From (7) we derive that the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than 36 points. 14) From (9) we derive that the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than 66 points. 15) From (11) we derive that the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than 60 points. 16) Combining (12)-(15) we derive than the cost of the HtSMP should be more than 66 and less than 72 points. 17) If the rules give us a cost for the HtSMP outside of the range in (16), then the rules are flawed, per © above. 18) When we determine the cost of the HtSMP, if we apply the –1 limitation to the reserve only, we get a cost of 60/2+6+6=42 points. 19) This contradicts (16) above, therefore applying the –1 limitation to the reserve only is not the correct way to determine the cost of the power. 20) When we determine the cost of the HtSMP, if we apply the –1 limitation to the slot costs only, we get a total cost of 60+6/2+6/2=66 points. 21) This contradicts (16) above, therefore applying the –1 limitation to the slots only is not the correct way to determine the cost of the power. 22) When we determine the cost of the HtSMP, if we apply a reduced limitation, say –1/2, to the reserve only, we get a total cost of 60/1.5+6+6=52 points. 23) This contradicts (16) above, therefore applying half the normal limitation to the reserve only is not the correct way to determine the cost of the power. 24) When we determine the cost of the HtSMP, if we apply a reduced limitation, say –1/2, to the slots only, we get a total cost of 60+6/1.5+6/1.5=68 points. 25) This agrees with (16) above, therefore applying half the normal limitation to the slots only may be a viable method for determining the price of the power. a) There may be other methods, but they must all agree with (16) to be viable. Is that clear? Take it slow and make the effort to follow the flow of logic. If there is anything above that isn't clear, let me know. Once it's clear, we can discuss whether it is correct. I claim that it is. I've got the above in a nicely formated Word document, but I don't have any place to post it.

Maybe, but that's an entirely separate issue. I'm not comparing "Extra Segment" with "Full Phase". I'm comparing (a) a limitation on using a MP slot with ( the same limitation on switching the MP to that slot. With (a) the limit effects you every time you use the slot, and with ( it only affects you the first time you use it after using a different slot. Therefore, the limitation you get for ( should be less than the limitation you get for (a). Is that clear now? For my own games, I like to use half the standard limitation for a switching limitation, but you could use some other method (1/4x the lim, 1/3x the lim, 3/4x lim, -1/4 lim, etc.). Of course it is! Read carefully: (A) A 12d6 EB costs 60 points. ( A MP with two fixed slots, 12d6 EB and 12d6 Flash costs 60+6+6=72 points. Isn't it fair and just and balanced that the above MP should cost more than the single power? Are you with me so far? Now, should a MP like ( but with a limitation on switching between the slots (no limit on actually using the slots), cost less than (, that is less than 72 points? Yes. Of course. It's more limited than (, therefore it should cost less. Still with me? Let's call this one: © A MP with two fixed slots, 12d6 EB and 12d6 Flash, with a limit that would normally be worth -1 -- not on using the powers in the slots -- but on switching between the two. If the limit were on using the slots, the MP would cost 60/2+6/2+6/2=36 points. But the limitation is only on switching the slots. My claim is it should cost more than (A) and less than (, that is 60<©<72. Using my suggested rule, it would cost 60+6/1.5+6/1.5=68 points. Have I made my point clear? If not, let me know. If I have, do you still disagree? And if so, why? What renders his ruling wrong, is that it grants a more flexible power for less points. It violates the notion of "You Get What You Pay For." See also my sig quote.

They may very well be from Steve Long, and they may very well be official, but they're still wrong - unbalanced, not thought=through. Steve Long is not infallable. Yes, I know that. I was using it as an example of why applying the lim to the reserve isn't right. Example in further detail: DelayMan has 48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4) 5u 4D6 HKA, extra phase 5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase for a total of 58 points. Every time he wants to use his HKA, it takes an extra phase. Every time he wants to fly, it takes an extra phase (to start the power). SlowSwitchMan has 48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4) 5u 4D6 HKA 5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM Also for a total of 58 points. It takes him an extra phase only once to use his HKA, but thereafter he can use it as much as he wants with no delay. If he flies later, he must take an extra phase to take off, but then he can land and take off again and again with no delay (provided he doesn't use his HKA in between). DelayMan needs an extra phase for every use. SlowSwitchMan needs the extra phase only for each switch. SSM's multipower is less limited and therefore should cost more than, not the same as, DM's multipower. Well, I put it on the slots because any limitation on the reserve is supposed to be on the slots as well. And Tom's original example also had it on the slots. That's why the slots cost 5 each instead of 6. But it really doesn't matter to my point. So let's leave the lim off the slots, then we get: 30 MP, 60 points, extra year (or whatever) to switch slots (-1) 6u 4D6 HKA 6u 20" Flight, x8 NCM 42 points. This is more power than (or at least as much as): 60 4d6 HKA for 60 points. This is why any switching limitations should only be on the slots. They affect the accessibility of each individual slot (or at least all the ones you put the lim on), not the active points in the reserve. If your points are in the wrong slot, that doesn't mean the reserve is limited. The slot is ready to go. If it happens not to be the power you want at the moment, that isn't a limit on the power itself. For the same reason that you don't get a limit on ED just because some opponents only have physical attacks, or a limit on Flash, just because some opponents have another targeting sense. Yes. Of course. But that isn't what we're talking about. Here's another example involving a gun with multiple settings: MP 60 point reserve - OAF required to switch slots (say, a small key-like device which must be inserted into a slot in the handle) u 4d6 RKA u 12d6 EB If someone takes the key away from you, the gun can still be used. Therefore the limitation is only on the slots (accessibility), not on the reserve. So the reserve should cost the full 60 and the slots 3 each, for a total of 66, because it's more powerful than a plain 60 AP gun with only one setting, but less powerful than a two-setting gun that doesn't need the key, which would cost 60+6+6=72 points. But wait, there's more! What if the gun is Normal damage normally but can switch to Killing with the use of a "safety key"? Now the gun looks like this: 60 MP 60 point reserve 3 u 4d6 RKA, OAF 6 u 12d6 EB There's no limit on the normal setting, only on the killing setting. Actually, the way this is set up, the OAF is required each time the killing slot is used. The limitation should be less than -1 (less limiting that is), if the OAF is only required to switch to the slot. I think half the limitation is a good rule of thumb, so OAF to use is -1, OAF to switch should only be -1/2. That's OK. You're not the first and you probably won't be the last Even Steve Long (or whomever wrote the FAQ) got it wrong.

Oh no! Not this argument again! Once again, the FAQ gives really bad advice. Sure, it includes the phrase "provided it makes sense to do so," but it should have said, "and it NEVER makes sense to do so." Tom McCarthy's example illustrates why very clearly, provided you're willing to look at it. 48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4) 5u 4D6 HKA 5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM vs. 60 4d6 HKA 2 points less for more power? That is not getting what you pay for. And why stop there? How 'bout: 30 MP, 60 points, extra year (or whatever) to switch slots (-1) 3u 4D6 HKA 3u 20" Flight, x8 NCM Now you've saved 24 points and have the same 60 point RKA! Also, any limitation that affects *switching* the slots should be less than what it would be for *using* the slots. 48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4) 5u 4D6 HKA, extra phase 5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase is a lot more limited than the "only to change slots" limitation. With this last version, you need to take an extra phase every time you want to use the MP, not merely when you want to switch the slots. There have been a number of threads explaining this. I hate it when the FAQ says stupid things! (No temperature level zero... grumble, grumble...)

We've had a lot of discussion about how magic changes the world from how it was historically, but I have another world-altering question: How does the long history and timelines given for many fantasy worlds (especially Epic Fantasy) affect things? ITRW, there was only about 10,000 years between the dawn of history (the first cities, writing, irrigation) and fully modern technology (moon landings, cell phones, the internet, nuclear weapons, plastic, refridgerators, etc.) Many fantasy worlds have intricate backgrounds laid out for them and a history spanning as much as 100,000 years. What prevented them from ever inventing gunpowder, or the printing press, or the cotton gin? With all the supposed ancient wisdom they had, and the long lifespans of some fantasy races, why didn't they advance technology in all that time? Sure there were occasional cataclysms (often with a capital C), but between these there was often more time for civilization to evolve then there has been in the real world since the dawn of history! And these guys are far beyond the ancient Sumerians: they have crossbows, trebuchets, wind and water mills, weaving, steel, and stellar navigation. How do we explain the lack of progress?

Assuming your players are all humans, the most important thing to keep in mind when designing races is to make sure the players can relate to them. That's the advantage of the traditional races (elves, dwarves, etc.) - people know and understand who and what they are. I once played in an excellent FH game in which all the races were "animal-men" There were ten different races, as I recall: Baboon-men and Vulture men - the "priestly" races, each with differing views on death. Elephant-men - wizards Ostrich-men - aristocratic folk who had formerly enslaved the Rhino-men - strong, tough Lion-men - warriors, obviously Zebra-men - masters of illustion Hyena-men - tricksters and rogues Scorpion-men - the bad guys out to control the world Ant-men - lackeys of the Scorpion men. The GM was careful to give each race a cultural "personality" so that we could understand each ones M.O. and philosophy. Each race had historical dislikes of certain other races and the players had to figure out how to get along. It was great fun.

Well, I'm certainly impressed. But I have one question: If they wet down the blade to keep it from overheating, won't the wood get wet when it come into contact with the wet blade? Wood expands when it gets wet, which can cause the blade to jam. What did they do about this?

I find the encumbrance rules to be mostly OK, but pehaps a little too lenient. I try to discourage characters from wearing heavy armor. They aren't soldiers who know exactly when they will be entering combat. They're adventurers who have no idea what lurks along the road ahead. I find it very unrealistic that a group of adventurers, while traveling for hours, are going to be wearing plate armor. "But we have to wear our armor at all times, because a troll might attack us at any moment!" So you're willing to pay END continuously and reduce your traveling speed? The faster you get to the next town, the safer you'll be. Also wearing plate armor could be more dangerous in a fantasy wilderness setting due to the containment of body odor. Lots of predatory animals hunt by scent. If you're wearing plate armor all day long, you smell very strong to a hungry monster. Also, if you're hunting for food yourself, all the animals you might want to eat might be able to smell you (and run away) long before you see them.

This is an issue which seems to come up a lot. There is no one right answer. The restriction on a VPP of "Only Spells the Wizard Knows" vaies depending on how many spells the wizard knows and how easy/how often he can learn new ones. If he has to develop each spell himself at considerable cost/danger, the restriction could be quite high. If he finds old spell books in the treasure after every adventure, each with a few new spells in them, this will be less restrictive. This is a question I've been struggling with for a long time. One way around it that I've used is to not use a VPP, but use a MultiPower with lots of slots. The drawback is that each spell has to be paid for, but they are all rather cheap 1/10 their real cost. I could go into lots of detail, but here it is breifly: VPP Method: 50 Pool cost - up to 50 real points worth of spells, each no more than 50 active points 8-12 Control cost - (whatever standard restictions for the campaign magic system, but say -1, requires hours of study with spell book), and an additional restriction "Only Known Spells" -? MP Method 25-50 50 Point Reserve with some overall lims 1 Spell A 1 Spell B 1 Spell C 1 Spell D 2-5 Big Spell - uses up the entire reserve 2-5 Another Big Spell The slot costs can be reduced to as low as 1 point each by putting restrictions on the circumstances required to access those slots.

It may have been to them, but if the surrounding cultures you with to trade with don't consider iron to be rare and valuable, they aren't going to accept your iron coins in trade. A large part of that reason is that they rust. Even if they accepted them in hopes of trading them back to you for other goods you might have, they can't, because the currency itself has a limited shelf-life. And a part of the reason that iron wasn't as valuable to other cultures, wasn't so much because it was plentiful to them, but because they hadn't yet learned to work it effectively. They probably had great appreciation for iron tools and weapons, but small disks of the stuff weren't good for much.

You don't have to. I can read. My point wasn't directed at you specifically. There were a few posts in a row that got off the subject of fantasy $ systems, and were instead talking about how much magic there is in Tolkien, apart from its effect on economics. Yes, that's what we were orginally talking about, but then some people started talking about how powerful a wizard Gandalf is and Tolkien's mythological inspirations. I'm not angry at anyone. I just wanted to get the thread back on topic. And I did mention turning lead into gold in my post.

Are we talking about Tolkien now? Back to fantasy $ systems: In one of the deendee settings (Forgotten Realms?) One of the main currencies is iron pieces. Pop quiz: Can anyone tell the class why this is a bad idea? Iron rusts! How would you like to look into your wallet and find that your money has disintegrated? Would you accept coin for you labor if it had a shelf life? And then just t'other day I read about an actual historical example of iron as currency. IIRC, it was the Spartans. The government had mandated that iron was money and people weren't allowed to have gold. As a result, people reverted to barter without coin, and had a hard time trading with other cultures because they didn't want coin that turned to brown flakes. Remember also that a lot of trade is accomplished by sailing over salt water - using iron coins would be almost as bad as transporting ice coins across a desert. Copper rusts very slowly and when it does, it remains mostly intact and identifiable. Silver tarnishes, but can be cleaned. Gold neither rusts nor tarnishes. Some alloys also would work reasonably well. For my game world, I don't bother with price lists and keeping strict account of exactly how much money the PCs have. I just keep a general idea of what they can afford. The players don't abuse my lenience by gathering tons of equipment, because they know that if they do, I will take it away and make them become accountants. My $ system is: Just about everyone uses the barter system. When people are paid in coin, unskilled laborers are paid in copper, craftsmen and artisans are paid in silver, nobles are bribed/make big purchases with gold. The PC's usually have a small pouch of silver. Because they spend most of their time travelling and being heroes, they generally don't haul around lots of wealth. If they happen to capture a huge hoard of treasure, they spend it on good times and good deeds. Because money is a fairly casual thing in my campaign, the players are free to develop other motivations. There are plenty of other important economic considerations, however. Like the fact that some types of goods are simply not available in certain areas. A small remove village doesn't have anyone skilled in making swords. And there are no "magic item shops" anywhere in my world. Also, I keep track of the industries of different cities. What they produce and what they export to other areas. And while it may be theoretically possible to turn lead into gold, or iron into silver. The formula required to do so will be extremely difficult for the PCs to discover, the ingredients required are extremely difficult and dangerous to acquire. If there are any NPCs who can do it, they haven't made themselves known to the PCs.

Well, my Bestiary just arrived. One additional thing I notice about cats and dogs is that cats are given the same intelligence as a "noteworthy human" (10), while dogs are given the same intelligence as an "average human" (8). What? ! I know there are a lot of stupid humans running around, but the average one is much smarter than both dogs and cats. And in my experience, dogs are significantly smarter than cats. That's why they can be trained, and can learn things and can understand communications at a much more sophisticated level than cats. There are no seeing-eye cats, or guard cats, or drug/bomb-sniffing cats. And Re: cat's DCV, I'd go ahead and give them a +3 DCV due to size, but I'd give them a base DEX of only 10 or 11. I haven't seen cats display any significant OCV. Sure, cats have stealth and breakfall, and they get bonuses to OCV for surprise (which is they way they usually hunt). But when I'm playing with a cat (when it can't sneak up on me), it isn't too hard to evade (and I'm not more than a 3 DCV human). In summary, I'd say lower the DEX to "normal" 10-12 or so, and lower the INT to 5 or so (or maybe even less), and then you'd have a realistic cat.