PhilFleischmann

Then you need to give the players some incentive for buying them at other levels. Some say it's about role-playing considerations, but that doesn't really cut it. A number on a character sheet doesn't give the character a personality, even if it is a "inefficient" number, like 11 INT. Gary came up with his idea above. Here's mine which I posted already but no one commented on it yet:

Re: Re: Physics Check Whoops! You're right. My bad.

Yes, that's what I meant, you're getting only 2/3 of the die you paid for, but you're getting a +1/2 advantage for free that isn't expicitly named, so it balances out.

I agree with all of the above, except for having to buy the Max up to double the normal Body (though I may reconsider this). The way Cumulative is described in the book (which I don't have in front of me), says that it may be applied to Adjustment powers that don't have another way to increase their maxima. The only Adjustment Powers this applies to are Suppress and Healing, and if FREd intended Cumulative Healing to be verboten, why didn't they just say "Cumulative may be applied to Suppress" rather than "Cumulative may be applied to some Adjustment Powers (plural)"? In short, as I've said on the "house rules that should be rules" thread, I allow Cumulative Healing, with or without Regenetation mods. And since Cumul is +1/2, and they're shorting you by -1/2 with the inconsistency (error?) in the Standard Effect Rule (2 per die instead of 3 per die), I say it balances out nicely. So the price is as per FREd.

Physics Check Remember that density is not the same as solidity. Wood is solid and water isn't, but water is more dense than wood, which is why it floats. (Exept for mahogany and similar woods). Remember also that density and weight (or mass) do not determine a body's falling speed. Metal and plastic may be equally solid and unequally dense, but they fall at the same speed. Terminal velocity is determined by aerodynamics (shape) not by density (and by the characteristics of the atmosphere of course). The only time density becomes an issue relating to falling is when the object approches the density of the atmosphere. A soap bubble has almost the same density as the surrounding air, since after all it's made of mostly air. An incremental desolid is a fine idea for a power, but it isn't the same as density decrease. A ping-pong ball is a lot less dense than a ping-pong table, but that doesn't mean the ball can pass through the table. I don't mean to stifle anyones ideas here. These are all useful power ideas: 1) An incremental Desolidification - passing through solid objects and allowing physical and energy attacks to pass through you without harm (or reduced harm). 2) Density Decrease - reducing mass but maintaining solidity and hardness, making it easier to move, climb, leap, float, etc. and possibly giving other effects as well. 3) Altering Hardness - this would probably be bought as extra DEF, Damage Resistance, and/or Damage Reduction. 4) I always wanted "Fluidification" as a power. The incremental price would allow descreasing viscosity, i.e., the more you spend, the easier you can flow. At a low level, you could become jelly-like; at a medium level, like oil or syrup; at a higher level, like water. Note that this could have the SFX of becoming particles as well: pebbles, sand, powder. I want it all! "Particle Man, Particle Man, doin' the things a particle can." - They Might Be Giants

Re: Re: Languages That's true, but in all my years of gaming, I've never been in a game where Japanese fluency was as useful as 5 points of almost anything else. Let's face it: some things are just more useful than others. Is 5 points of Native Japanese as useful as 5 points of High Society (10+PRE/5)-? (Just to keep it within the skills area.)

You could also just pick any seven things you happen to like and see where it goes from there. Who says every natural phenomenon has to have a god? Let's pick a few random things for example: Rats The Crescent Moon Chocolate Mount Gomorinchus Marketplaces Gryphons Opals What would the god of rats be like? What other concepts/phenomena/values might he be associated with? Stealth, thievery, decay, hunger, disease, fear, cowardice, prolificity, timidity, humility, are a few that come to mind. The god of rats may be worshipped as a personification of any of these, perhaps all, perhaps only a few. The god of Mount Gomorinchus (located on the east cost of Temna) could be associated with anything that the Temnans connect with that particular mountain. He may or may not be the god of all mountains. Maybe it's a fertility goddess because of the rain water that runs down the slopes and onto the farmlands of Temna. Maybe it's a god of navigation as the mountain is visible from a long way out to sea. Maybe a god of the stars and the heavens as the mountain appears to be reaching up to the sky. The crescent moon may imply either or both growth or decline, thing beginning or coming to an end, incompletenes, darkness. Perhaps the crescent shape suggests a smile, and so this might be a god of laughter and happiness. Of course it could also be a frown. Note that this might not be a god of the moon in general, only the crescent moon. Other phases of the moon may not have any gods attached. The god of marketplaces might teach greed or honesty or travel or knowledge or storytelling or craftsmanship... etc...

Languages Eh? Half? Who says that you only understand half? If a plumber has PS: Plumbing 11-, does that mean that he can only fix a leaking faucet half the time? Re-read the rules on skills and skill rolls. For routine tasks, such as reading a normal book, or listening to a person speak normally (replacing a washer), a roll is not required. You'd only have to make a roll in a difficult or unusual circumstance, such as picking up a subtle linguistic clue that the guy on the other end of the phone is trying to let you know that he's been taken hostage without alerting his captors. Or perhaps as a bard, the king has commanded you to compose a poem on the spur of the moment about his latest military victory. Or perhaps you need to understand a text with very technical, or highly nuanced language. Yes, they do, but that's not what the points are for. You don't pay points based on how difficult to acquire a skill or power would be. You pay based on how useful it is. Do you honestly think speaking Japanese like a native is as useful as a 5-pt combat skill level, or an extra DC of an attack, or 5 points of defense? And so would I. And I would also bow down to any person who can teleport 1" more easily than he can learn Japanese. Ease or difficulty isn't the issue. Utility is the issue.

I think this is a great idea. I came up with something similar but never really used it much. I think it needs a slight boost in the amount of BODY done. Say, 5's also count as 2 BODY. I also like the "roll high" idea. I've heard this method referred to as "Target Numbers." I understand those who want STR to cost 2 points (even though I don't use this modification), but why double the cost of INT? My house rules that should be rules IMHO: 1) Healing can be bought with the Cumulative advantage to allow multiple healings to stack. Restrictions may still be necessary for particular genres/campaign types. This is why I allow Regeneration as-is. You only get 2 cp of effect per die instead of 3 in exchange for the Cumulative advantage (which is +1/2) so it balances out. 2) Languages should be priced like other background skills. I think they're way too expensive as is. If 2 pts of PS is enough to do that job for a living, then 2 points of language should be enough to be a normal speaker of the language. Literacy is free or not based on the campaign setting. In most modern-day campaigns and genres, literacy would be free with the language. Then you treat the language like any other skill roll. 2 points gets you an 11 or less (or a 10 or higher!) roll to accomplish a language-task. This makes you a normal user of the language. If you want to be a master poet or deeply appreciate the subtle nuances of great literature in the language, you'll need to buy the roll higher. 3) Adjustment powers can effect Disadvantages as if they were "negative powers." This can lead to some wierd, but useful, constructs, so it's important to make sure the concept makes sense. For example, a mentallist could buy an Aid to temporarily remove an ally's Psych Lim. A witch could cast a curse Drain to cause someone to have a Distinctive Feature. The evil Crippler can cause Physical Limitations. Some disads would almost never make sense to manipulate in this way, such as Reputation, Hunted, Poverty, but if a sufficiently creative player can come up with something that makes sense, why not? Vulnerabilities and Susceptibilities should be treated as "defenses" and therefore are subject to halving the dice of effect. 4) Remove Inherent. It's either free because it makes sense, or it doesn't make sense and is therefore unavailable. 5) Under certain circumstances, INT rolls and INT skill rolls are calculated by something other than 9+INT/5. In cases where specific skill knowledge is more important than usual, the roll is 10+INT/6, or maybe 10+INT/7, or 10+INT/8. These are cases when it doesn't matter how smart you are if you haven't done your homework. In other cases, raw intelligence might be more useful than specific knowledge, in which case the roll might be 9+INT/4, or 8+INT/3, or in extreme cases 7+INT/2. This would indicate a circumstance where, even if you haven't done your homework, you might still be able to figure it out if you're smart enough. One of the benefits to this rule is that it encourages players to buy INTs other then 8, 13, 18, 23,... That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there's more.

This is a power I've wanted included for decades. Most of the time people said, "Desolid." But that isn't what I wanted, I wanted Density Decrease. I wound up writing my own power. It granted bonuses to Leaping, Climbing, and Swimming (more boyant), makes it more difficult to dive underwater. Also bonuses to END or REC (only or especially for recovering END) because it's less effort to carry your body weight and move it around. You'd also take increased knockback.

This is one of the main reasons why I don't keep strict count of money in my games. I don't want game time spent picking over corpses for every last trinket that might fetch a few silver pieces at the pawn shop. Players will do whatever it takes to get ahead in the game you create. If exact accounts are kept, you give players incentive to scrounge for every bit of money they can find. As I've said before, I want my players to be heroes, not accountants. (Nothing against accountants, they just don't make exciting characters.)

The -0 limitation would have to be "Only up to the difference in size between the combattants" to be more complete. In other words, where a human might have -12 to hit a one-inch pixie, a one-foot brownie would only have a -6 to hit the pixie. And it would have to work for larger creatures as well. A 12-foot giant would have -14 to hit the pixie, and the 500-foot titan would have -24 to hit the pixie. This is consistant, but it seems a little extreme to me. If you reduce it to +1 DCV per halving, the human hits at -6, the brownie at -3, the giant at -7 and the titan at -12.

Two fighting humans with the same DEX need 11 or less to hit each other. Two fighting inch-high pixies with the same DEX need -1 or less to hit each other. Even if they're performing maneuvers that have up to a -4 DCV penalty, they still only hit each other on a 3 on 3d6 (1 in 216 chance). Two fighting 500-foot tall titans with the same DEX need 23 or less to hit each other. Even if they're performing maneuvers that have up to a -6 OCV penalty, they still only miss each other on an 18 on 3d6 (1 in 216 chance). Is this OK with you? If not, what do you do about it? Granted, I'm using the most extreme examples to make a point, but this problem exists at any size other than "normal human." My suggestion is to do something like what d20 has done. (I dislike deendee as much as anyone, but I have to admit when they do something right.) Each size bonus to DCV should come with an equal bonus to OCV for HTH only (not ranged). I still find this somewhat extreme, so I reduce the bonus to +/-1 for each size level, rather than +/-2. With this rule, the two pixies hit each other on 11-, and the two titans hit each other on 11-. A human hits a pixie on 5-. A pixie hits a human on 17-. A human hits a titan on 17-. A titan hits a human on 5-. A pixie hits a titan on 23-. A titan hits a pixie on -1 or less. And if your hand (or whatever weapon you're using) can completely cover a "proportional hex", it can be treated as an AE attack. By "proportional hex", I mean the amount of area equal to the proportion between a normal human and a normal hex, scaled down (or up) to the size of the target. A pixie 1/64 the size of a human has a proportional hex size 1/64 the diameter of a normal 1" hex, i.e., 1/64 x 2m = 1/32 m = about 3.125 cm. So it would be fairly easy to swat the pixie with your open hand, but it would be very difficult to skewer it on the point of your rapier. (Although it would be worth the effort. Pixies are mighty good eating, I hear.) What do you think of this? I'm not entirely certain of it myself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: FH Perks That's fine. My only problem is that the FH book says that "Spirit Contacts" cost twice as much as regular contacts (or more!) without explaining why. Just like they did when they said that Grand Duke is more expensive than Viscount without explaining why. If you charge more CPs, you have to explain what it gets you. As a GM, I can interpret this myself, but the FH book is asking me to fit my game rulings to their cost structure. All I'm asking for is some guidelines, quid pro quo, not just labels with prices.

Thank you! I think we're on the home stretch. Now, what if there is no one "default slot"? i.e., what if the default slot is whatever slot was most recently allocated? Each slot requires extra time (or some other limitation) to switch to. And yes, in some cases the lims might not be the same for all slots: Slot A requires a full phase to switch to. Slot B requires a full turn to switch to. Slot C costs END to switch to. Slot D requires Concentration to switch to. Slot E has possible Side Effects when switched to! Slot F has an 11- Activation roll to switch to. Slot G requires an expendible focus to switch to. Slot H has no limitation to switch to (but it's not the "default"). Slot I requires a full phase and concentration to switch to. Slot J can only be switched to a limited number of times per day (charges). The policy I recommend (and have been this whole time) is that half the normal value of the limitation be applied to each slot cost. For example, Slot F would receive a -1/2 limitation, since 11- Activation is normally -1.

Uh, I don't know about you, but I like to know what I'm getting when I buy it. First I decide what I want, then I find out how much it costs, and finally I decide if I want to pay that price. The question tesuji originally asked was NOT "How should I limit a power construct bought with X limitation/discount?" but rather "How much of a limit/discount is it worth to have X effect?" If you don't have a good answer, that's fine, but don't tell him he shouldn't ask the question. If a player comes to you and says, "I want this effect, how much does it cost?" Do you say, "well, how much are you willing to spend?" like a used car salesman? "I'll tell you what: you pay however much you want, and then I'll surprise you with how much it actually winds up limiting you in play." I don't know too many players who'd respond favorably to that policy. That's the beauty of the HERO System, IMO: You build exactly the character you want.

There's another issue, mentioned in FREd IIRC, that no one has mentioned here: If he's already a filthy rich noble, why would he ever want to go adventuring? Risk being eaten by a troll or lounge around in your palace with your servants bringing you good eats, drinks, and merries. How long does it take to make this choice? You want the legedary Ring of Hufarb? Hire some adventurers to go questing for you!

The FREd Errata says to "write in 'pizza box' where is says, 'machine gun'" on page 327. As far as I can tell, it doesn't say 'machine gun' anywhere on that page. What's the deal? I assume this is meant to be a joke. Could you explain it please? I don't get it.

Hugh, in this paragraph you seemed to start to understand what Tesuji (and Gary and I) were saying. We're talking about allowing what you're calling the "default allocation of points." The default being whichever slot was used most recently. You might simply say, "but you can't do that," which you're entitled to do in your games, but it doesn't answer the initial question: Assuming a fair GM *does* allow players to do that, how much should is cost? How does one determine the value of a "difficult to switch" limitation, and what should that limitation be applied to. Because of the "default allocation," tesuji, Gary, and I have all said that the limitation should only apply to the slots and not the reserve points. Otherwise, you could wind up with a more useful construct for fewer points. If you can't get past the "you can't do that" reflex, then you won't be able to contribute anything useful to this discussion. You've done an excellent job of explaining your point about the fair cost of denying the default allocation, and I agree with you, but that isn't the question tesuji raised. IMO, "you can't do that" is not appropriate in the HERO System. That's something I would expect from that other system I've heard so much about. HERO is based on the idea that you can do anything if you pay the fair price for it. The only question is what is, or how do you determine, the fair price?

Re: Re: FH Perks I'd say to any player who wants a Summon for the price of a Contact, "Welcome to Munchkinland." Even at twice the price, it's still too cheap for a summon. If you want to summon a spirit to do your bidding, buy Summon. They are two different things, that's why they have two different prices. That's exactly my point! What does it get you? If they mean to imply some actual level of political power and privileges, then why aren't those spelled out in the table? All the table gives is titles. A list of titles can certainly be useful, but give at least some general guidelines for what each title gives you. That's all I'm asking for. I'd just give the perk one generic name: Nobility. Paul the peasant doesn't buy nobility. Bob the baron buys 3 points of nobility. Dave the duke buys 7 points of nobility. Don't Paul, Bob, and Dave deserve fair bang for the buck? What does Bob get that Paul doesn't get? And what does Dave get that Bob doesn't get? And by this, I mean what do they get that is actually useful in play? (0, 3 or 7 points of utility.)

And why are "fighting arrays" bought with IPE at all? If two people are cooperatively fighting, can't you see that they're cooperating? Can't an observer notice the skill with which they fight? Often, that's half the fun! "You can observe a lot just by watching." --Yogi Berra

Where are you getting these numbers? Certainly not from my example. (50+5+5)/1.25=60/1.25=48 50+(5+5)/1.25=50+10/1.25=50+8=58 Apparently so. ( Sheesh! Is this brain surgery?)

FH Perks Another "Random FH Problem" I've found as I gradually wade through the thick book: Spirit Contacts? O.K. fine, but why is there a x2 multiplier to the cost without there being some desciption of why the contact is twice as useful? It seems like having to pay for special effects. If I can have a contact with the local wizard for the normal cost, why should I have to pay twice as much for a spirit? The book gives no definition as to why. Are they twice as likely to help you? No. Are they half as difficult to get in touch with? No, in fact the book gives examples which imply that they may be more difficult to get in touch with. Do spirits know twice as much? Maybe, but the book doesn't say. Is their knowledge twice as useful? Maybe but the book doesn't explain why. Do they have twice as much influence they can exert on your behalf? Who knows? And another perk that seems incompletely defined: The various Rank perks (nobility, religious, military, etc.). What exactly is it that a Grand Duke gets for his 9 points that a Baron doesn't get, having spent only 4? It's not a bigger castle - that would be covered under the Base perk. It seems to me that the actual title isn't worth anything - only what that title gives you. If you're a king with a small kingdom of 10,000 square miles and 1,000,000 subjects, I'd say thats worth the same as being a duke in a huge kingdom where your duchy is 10,000 square miles and contains 1,000,000 subjects. Without some defining rules (or at least guidelines) the titles are meaningless. Perhaps they should have been saved for the specific fantasy setting books. (Being king of Virbenland, one of the main kingdoms in my campaign world, is probably worth the full 15 points, maybe more; but being king of Osai, a small, semi-nomadic tribe, is probably only worth 5.) They might as well have used "fantasy" titles: gloof 1 pt huba 2 pts shmengee 3 pts sub-hufarb 4 pts hufarb 5 pts grand hufarb 6 pts frammis 7 pts What's the point if we don't know what the actual benefits are? And why the heck do you have to pay to be a squire? What kind of a perk is that? All it is is the errand-boy to a knight! If anything you should get a disad for it (subject to orders, watched, etc.). And besides, it wasn't until the 1600's, under King Edward, IIRC, that those titles were given a strict ranking. Prior to that time there was no functional difference between a count and a duke. It was only a matter of tradition what one's title was. It had nothing to do with the size of the demesne. Probably part of the reason why the titles are in that order is because of the political situation at the time: Ed just liked the current duke more than he liked the current earl.

Yes, you are changing the real costs! You're giving 135 *real points* of power for only 58 *real points* of cost. I'd rather keep real=real so I don't have to worry (as much) about balancing them with non-mages.

tesuji is quite right. He has explained his point over and over again quite clearly. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand for some. Try not to get distracted by unrelated subjects such as whether it's an OAF, or has other limitations, or what types of powers are in the slots. Let me take another crack at it, because I'm sure Tesuji is tired of repeating himself. Here's an example which doesn't include any other limitations, no guns, safety locks, or specific power types: Magic Wizard A has one 50 pt spell that costs 50 points. He can use it all day long whenever he wants with no delay, as long as he has the END, and tomorrow when he wakes up in the morning, he can use it some more, and then next week and next year. He doesn't have to wait for it to "warm up." Wizard B has one 50 pt spell with a -1/2 worth of Extra Time limitation. This costs 33 points. Every time he uses the power it takes the extra time (I don't remember how much extra time, but it really isn't important. I think it was an Extra Phase.) Wizard C has two 50 point spells in a MP as ultra slots that each use up the whole pool. This costs 50+5+5=60 points. He can use either power, one at a time, whenever he wants, just like Wizard A can, but he has two choices which he can make freely whenever he wants as a zero-phase action. Wizard D has the same MP as Wizard C, but the powers both have the Extra Time (Extra Phase) limitation on them. This costs 60/(1+1/2)=40 points. Every time he uses one of his powers in the MP, it takes an extra phase for the power to function. All of the above are regular contructs in FREd. Wizard E wants the same pool as Wizard C but with a Extra Time to switch slots - not extra time to use the slots - just to change from one to the other. If he's currently using slot 1, he can use it all day long with no delay, just like Wizard A uses his spell, or just like Wizard C uses any one of his slots. However, if Wizard E decides he wants to use slot 2, he must first "waist" a full phase changing the slot. After which, he can use slot two all day long and into next month with no restriction or delay, just like Wizard C could, or just like Wizard A could use his one spell. The question is: How much should Wizard E pay for his MP? Some might say, "You simply can't do that!" If that's you're answer, then I'd say you don't understand the HERO system. The main idea is that you can do what you want, how you want, as long as you pay the appropriate price for it. That's why I for one don't play d20. Some might say, "That's abusive!" To which I would respond, "How can you tell, if the price hasn't been set yet?" Clearly, if the player wanted to only pay 10 points, that's not enough, and he's trying to get more that what he's willing to pay for. But just as clearly 500 point is far more than it's worth. Somewhere between those two extremes is an appropriate (i.e., non-abusive) price for the effect the player wants. So how much should it cost? Clearly, Wizard E's MP is: slightly less useful than Wizard C's, more useful than Wizard A's one spell, more useful than Wizard D's MP, much more useful than Wizard B's one spell. Therefore Wizard E's MP should cost: slightly less than 60 pts, more than 50 pts, more than 40 pts, more than 33 pts. If we decide that the "only to switch" should be half of the "every time you use it" limitation, then the basic limitation is -1/4. What should we apply it to? If we apply it to the pool cost as well as the slot cost the price is 60/1.25=48 points. If we apply it to the slots only, the cost is 50+10/1.25=58. Which one of these is slightly less than 60 and more than 50? Remember: we're not talking about rules-abusing players, we're talking about figuring out the appropriate price for something a player wants. If he's not willing to pay it, that's his problem, but if you're charging him too little, that's yours.