BlueBuddha

Re: Conversion of the Torg magic system? I played a mage in a Torg campaign weekly for over a year recently. I, too, became quite fond of the magic system. It had everything I wanted in a magic system. You could play it very simply, and add in lots of options as you gained experience. I was actually pretty surprised that such a fantastic system (or at least the beginnings of one- it could have used a second edition) existed in such a mess of a overall game system. Since I recently picked up Fantasy Hero 6E, I've been thinking about converting it (or parts of it) myself. Here are some ideas on how I'd do it: Magic Skills: There would be a separate skill for each of the four types of spells: Alteration, Apportation, Conjuration, and Divination. You could base Alteration and Divination on Int and Apportation and Conjuration on Ego. Arcane Knowledges I would probably keep these simple, and treat them like weapon familiarities. In fact, to keep things cheaper, you might allow casters to buy an entire group, such as "elements" for 2 points like a weapon group. I found the list of 22 Arcane Knowledges a bit daunting. Being able to learn a significant chunk of them took a lot of possibilities. Process Theorems You might leave these out, or you might make them a flat-cost talent or skill that would allow you to modify spells or help you design them. I don't see a point in working too hard to somehow build these as HERO system powers. The Principle of Definition This is a rule that says that a target can only be affected by one spell of a particular Arcane Knowledge at a time. If you like it, you could make this a house-rule in the game. I never particularly liked it, myself. Acquiring Spells This is one aspect of the system that could be pretty easily copied directly over. Each spell would have a skill requisite. If you have the skill at the requisite level, plus the appropriate Arcane Knowledge, you can learn the spell. This is the point where you need to decide how much spells will cost. I'm inclined, at this point, to say that spells cost nothing. They are like tools, and as long as the character has the prerequisites and the time and resources to learn a spell- he can add it to his list. Prerequisites and the associated backlash will keep it all in check. You only have to worry about expansive spell lists, not power level. If I thought it was too easy to learn spells, I could either make it harder in-game to learn new spells, or charge a nominal fee. Casting Spells Simple enough. Casting a spell requires a casting skill roll of the appropriate type, with the penalty listed in the spell description (I would base this on AP and RP). Casting From a Grimoire In order to cast a spell directly from a grimoire, you must[/b ]have the Arcane Knowledge. If you have the requisite skill roll, the penalty and backlash (see below) would be increased. If you don't have the requisite skill roll, backlash would be greatly increased. Backlash Here is something that doesn't translate so cleanly, so I'm tempted to house-rule a system of my own. In Torg, it's possible to cast a spell and take no backlash from it. However, a low enough roll could mean taking the equivalent of END, STUN, and BODY damage. Building this into a HERO power could be complicated. Instead, I would recommend a simpler system. All spells would have a backlash threshold (as they do in Torg), and the amount by which you miss this threshold on your skill check would determine what sort of backlash you would take. For instance, if you miss by up to 5 points, you would take 1d6 END for each point you missed by. This could also mean taking STUN if you run out of END, as per the normal rules. If you miss by more than 5, you would also take 1d6 BODY for every point over 5. I would have to play with this a bit to nail down the actual values, be they a die roll, as above, or maybe a fixed number instead. I’d also keep the rule in Torg where there is a cap to the amount of backlash you can take from a learned spell (I always kept this in mind in my campaign). I would consider this whole mess a limitation with a value similar to a side-effect. The bigger the gap between the skill roll to use the power and the backlash threshold would increase the value of the limitation. Mental Damage Effects In Torg, if you KO yourself when casting a spell, you can lose access to that Arcane Knowledge for a while. This is another house-rule you’d have to decide on. Types of Spells Impressed spells, and Warding spells are distinctions made in Torg that I feel aren’t an important aspect of the system that needs to be addressed here unless you’re really trying to duplicate the feel of Torg. Illusionary Magic This is one of the more interesting aspects of the Torg magical system. Basically, it says that any Conjuration or Alteration magical effect is more or less real, depending on the Arcane Knowledge you use to create the effect. Anything using less than True Knowledge can be “disbelieved” by the viewer and basically ignored. Part of the paradigm of Ayle (the fantasy realm in the Torg RPG) says that belief makes things real, so the distinction between a magical “illusion” vs. a magical “reality” is really a matter of whether those seeing the effect believe it. It’s a rule I thought was very cool, but I honestly don’t know how to replicate it. Spell Manipulation This was also one of the most interesting aspects of the magic system, in my opinion. It allowed you to trade range, difficulty, backlash, duration, casting time, and other aspects of the spell around to suit your needs. Fantasy Hero actually explains a couple ways in which you can do this. If you really want to replicate the Torg system, I’d do it sort of like this: First, you would have to have the appropriate process theorems, and then you would have to break down the power in HERO terms and change things around. Without getting into as much detail as Torg does, I would say that after you change around the spell, you would recalculate the skill penalty and backlash threshold and use the new values. I might be tempted to write up a simplified set of rules for playing with the various values. Casting on the Fly This is also addressed in Fantasy Hero. In HERO terms, all wizards who have all four casting skills seem to have a VPP of unlimited value, but limited to spells covered by their casting skills and Arcane Knowledges. Depending on how many bp are being spent on magic, this might be a free power, or I’d require players to buy it as part of the bp cost of being a wizard. In play, I would definitely not try to convert the Torg spell design mechanics. They were complicated enough just for that system. Instead, I’d work it like a normal VPP. In order to change powers in the VPP, a skill roll would have to be made. If you’re using theorems, then obviously they can’t be applied here. Of course, really powerful spells would likely kill you with their backlash (they’re cast like Grimoire spells), which would keep players from abusing it.

I’m working on a Middle-Earth one-shot based on a mix of my own LOTR knowledge, the old Middle-Earth RPG by Iron Crown, the new LOTR RPG by our own beloved Steven Long, and the LOTR Online RPG. A little background- I’m setting it post War of the Ring, maybe 20-40 years into the Fourth Age. I’m going to pre-generate 10 characters and pick a few to actually play with. I’m also going to sketch out some stats for various orc and other foes as well. The heroes are all 150-points, so they’re fairly experienced (I think I’d start at 100 if I was doing a campaign from the beginning). Here’s a quick overview: Gondorian soldier (heavy warrior with some leadership & tactics. Ranger of the North (light warrior with a lot of skills) Elf Archer from Mirkwood Dwarf Warrior from Erebor (of course, he uses axes) Hobbit with some rogue-type skills Elf Lore-Master from Rivendell Mounted warrior from Rohan Beorning skin-changer (barbarian/druid type) Dúnadan magician (wizard, basically) Dale bard/minstrel So far, I’m using the guidelines from the HERO system book, going with the Standard Hero. I’m struggling a bit with where CVs and DCs should be. Have a look at these basic stats, if you would, and let me know what you think. First off, here’s the guidelines: Character Spd DCV OCV DC Def/rDef Standard Hero 2-4 3-7 3-7 3-8 10/5 And here are my sample characters: Character Spd DCV OCV DC Def/rDef Light warrior 3 6 6 6 4 Heavy warrior 3 4/7 5 7 6 Heavy warrior 3 5 5 7 6 Archer 3 5 7 8 3 Rogue 3 5 5 5 3 Lore-Master 3 3 3 2 Mounted warrior 3 5 5 6 4 Skin-changer 3 5 5 6 4 Magician 3 3 3 2 Minstrel/Bard 3 4 4 5 3 And some thoughts: I want the heavy warrior to be highly defensive with heavy armor and his shield, but I don’t want his DCV to get too high. His DC is low due to his one-handed sword. The dwarf won’t be weighed down with a shield, but his stoutness and combat levels can raise his DCV if needed. I’m giving the archer extra DCs with his bow, due to a low-strength. Should I limit them in any way? He’ll be only lightly-armored. Should I give the lightly/non-armored characters combat luck? The rogue will be tricky. His DCV will be really high when he wants it to be, and he can do great damage with a “sneak-attack”. Not sure yet how to handle this. I think a number of combat levels, and extra-DCs with a limit. The advantage to the mounted warrior is obviously tied to his mount. I’m going to go pretty simple with the mounted combat rules, but does anyone have suggestions? The Beorning skin-changer is a barbarian/druid type with the ability to change into a bear for extra smack-down power. He’ll have unarmed and simple weapon skills. He’s strong, but not as skilled as the warriors. He’ll probably have some kind of natural defenses. FYI- the difference between the Lore-master and magician is the former has more knowledge and helpful powers, while the latter will have more D&D-style blast spells and such. The minstrel-bard: here’s the difficult part. I don’t want a D&D-style bard, because a buffer-type character is not fun in a tabletop RPG. I might cut this one. Anyone can take lore and performance skills, and one of the warriors is probably going to be a high-ranking soldier with Inspiration. Any ideas to make a playable M-E bard?

Re: Fighting Techniques of the Middle Ages: anyone read this? I'd love to check out the book. I hear plenty of self-proclaimed experts on medieval warfare on gaming boards, but not a lot of facts If for no other reason than to know what I'm being unrealistic (cough... dual-weilding...cough) about, it would be nice to know how they really fought.

Re: Simplifying 1-hand/2-hand/1.5-hand/Str Mins. Well, you can, but it won't add damage. Or, at the GMs discretion, maybe you can, but you either have to be close, or take a OCV penalty. I've never stabbed anyone like that before, but it seems like an inaccurate attack. I also forgot to mention that you can only increase damage from a weapon to twice its base damage.

Re: Simplifying 1-hand/2-hand/1.5-hand/Str Mins. As much as I don't like D&D, the rules for categorizing and using weapons in one or two hands is fairly slick and easily used. I think the HERO rules make sense, but aren't intuitive and pretty hard to remember. I'm still not sure if I'm gonna use the rules as-is or simply using 5-point STR increments to adjust OCV, DCV, and DCs. Also, I think the 1-1/2 handed option isn't necessary. Daggers can only be used one-handed. Every 5 pts of STR add a DC. Longswords can be used one or two-handed. As an officially "one-handed" weapon, wielding it in two hands will lower the STR Min/ raise your effective STR by 5, so you can eliminate some penalties or add a DC of damage (like dropping your sword and swinging it two-handed for more force) Greatswords are 2-handed by default, and as normal, every 5 pts of extra STR add a DC. Wielding it one-handed raises the STR min/ lowers your effective STR by 5, thus adding penalties or subtracting damage. It's basically the same rules but highly simplified. Ideally, I'd use the rules as published, but unfamiliar players, or players too bothered to memorize or continually look up the rules can go with the simplified version.

So, the rules for using 1-handed, 1 1/2-handed, and 2-handed weapons one-handed and two-handed weapons with either one or two hands with various Strength minimums works well, but can get pretty hard to keep track of spontaneously, like when you peel a sword off an enemy's corpse and try to figure out what your OCV, DCV, and DC is going to be. Hang on, lemme crack open the book to... what page was that again? So, I think I'm just going to simplify things a bit. I think it's pretty intuitive. Let me know what you think: All weapons are either one- or two-handed, depending on how they're intended to be weilded. Weilding a one-handed weapon in two-hands, if possible, will lower the Str Min by 5. This allows you to avoid a penalty and possibly do more damage. Using a two-handed weapon in one hand raises the Str Min by five for calculating penalties and damage. ...okay. Now that I've written all that and looked back at the rules, I realize all I've done is remove 1-1/2 handed weapons and changed the Str Min modifier from 3 to 5. This is truly a simplified system that writing has helped me to memorize the actual rules. Funny. What I think it's really worth is for quickly calculating things for players who aren't familiar with the rules.

Re: Shields As it is, shields grants +1 to +3 DCV, raising a normal to about 4 or 5 (since they can't carry a heavy shield). I think that's fair. It takes away from their offensive ability as they can't carry 2-handed weapons. As for the "passive" DCV bonus, I think it can depend on circumstances, but should be nailed down to reduce arguments. I think someone shooting you in the back will bypass the entire bonus, while side-shots will get partial coverage (1 point less), and frontal shots will be full. A surprise shot will get increased OCV, so we can leave it there, instead of reducing DCV. Does that sound about right?

Re: magic system I've been piecing together a magic system based on LOTR and shadowrun ideas. I like throwing side-effects on "dangerous" spells. Here's what I tend to go with: Exhausing spells: A STUN or END (or both) drain. Dangerous spells: An EB or KA. Evil and Corrupting Spells: Cumulative transform based on EGO, with a gradual effect. Basically, it turns the caster evil. The first two are usually weak side-effects, but the last is usually a pretty major side-effect, just to make the transform a threat. Luckily, one or two castings don't put the caster in much danger, but is enough to make him "creepy" and scare the player a bit. The transform heals with time, or with some sort of quest. As for dissuading players from taking such spells: I agree, you don't want to make a single casting likely to kill the PC. Even if the idea and SFX are that the spell "can kill the caster," it's not going to kill the main character in a novel (unless it's pre-planned), so it's not going to kill a PC either. A 1d6+1 KA is a threat to a PC even if it won't kill him in one shot (make sure your mage has at least BODY 8). You can call it "deadly" the way a pistol is "deadly" at 1d6+1 RKA.

So, I equipped one of my FH characters with a shield as statted out in FH. It's a large shield, to go with his Str of 15, and that gives a +3 DCV. That's not insignificant. AFAIK, that's an automatic +3 as long as he's holding it, and +3 to blocking. Am I correct? If so, that means in order to keep things even, you'll typically need +3 CSLs to beat someone holding a large shield. It doesn't bother me that anyone behind a shield is harder to hit, or significantly harder to hit if they're behind a particularly large shield. I think shields are underpowered in other RPGs. I was just wondering if anyone tried out these numbers and had anything to say about how they work in their campaigns. Is +3 for a large shield too much? Is combining it with a martial block or CSLs with shields too much?

Re: Rise up and smite them!

Re: Vampires AND disease? I imagine vampires as having a body in much the state a body has after death, but before decomposition. None of the organs or tissue are alive or functioning, but instead animated by magic. As such, diseases have the same effect they'd have on any inanimate structure. A blood disease would stay alive as long as the blood drank by the vampire stays alive how long that is is up to you. In the vampire rpg, vamps use blood to power their supernatural abilities, at which point, it "goes away," and I've carried that idea into other vampire myths, myself. Drinking the infected blood of a vampire might infect you if drinking the blood of an infected human would. Otherwise, the vamp isn't "infected" itself, so it normally can't be transmitted by sneezing, coughing, etc. And that would be my 2 AP.

Re: Some advice I'm aware of this, and it's precisely my GM lowered DEX across the board in our Champs campaign. While normals with guns still can't hurt my tank with their puny bullets, they can hit more often, and if one gets a hold of a VIPER blaster, they can be remotely dangerous. I want the same thing in my FH. I don't want a mob with pitchforks to be completely irrelevant to a starting, or even moderately experienced character. Of course, one or even a dozen villagers with spears will probably be no challenge to a prepared, armed, and armored experienced fighter. I think if you assume normals have a 3 OCV, 1 with a weapon they're not proficient with, they're not gonna hit a warrior very often, even if he's weighed down -2 DCV in their armor, but enough rolls, and one will get lucky. A green soldier will have OCV 3 with his sword, and can hit a DCV 5 or 6 starting hero enough to be a threat. Orcs will be built similarly. One of the horde of faceless orcs might be CV 3, having minimal training, but a squad of moderately trained soldiers can outclass a gang of orcs easily enough. Mostly their fury and lack of fear make them dangerous. (side-note: I play up this factor when I've run LOTR. Orcs live such miserable lives in fear of Sauron and their commanding orc that nothing the PCs can say really can intimidate them. Death is almost welcomed by them).

Re: Should I keep going with this article? Absolutely finish it! Even unfinished, I found that very useful. I'm looking forward to the from-scratch article as well. You're a valuable resource. Thanks!

Re: Some advice Savinien: Makes sense. Maybe if you reset the campaign or start over, but I agree, its not worth making a fuss over as long as it all still works fine. When my Champs campaign converted to 5e, everyone lost about 5-6 points of dex, and the GM still has to convert published NPCs and villains when we go against them. I think typical soldiers will have a Dex of 8-11, exceptional ones going to the 15 level, but only heroic characters will go above that. PCs will be similar. I think you can easily get you butt kicked by the veteran soldier with battle-worn and slightly arthritic joints at Dex 8, who still has 5+ CSLs and +2 or more DCs with his chosen weapons. Doc Democracy: Some very useful advice. I'll get to work on statting that out. A while back, in 4e, I statted out some orcs at the normal, competent, and heroic levels, and I'll set the PCs to these levels. I'm starting off with a one-shot with pre-generated characters, so I'll be to blame for any balance issues. Markdoc: I see things similarly. There's nothing extraordinary about someone who simply decided to join the guard or army, he just gets training. So, once they'e whipped into shape, they end up with stats around 10, but start to gain CSLs. Live long enough, and you're a 100- point captain, famous throughout the land.

Re: Some advice Well, that's very good to know. I think I might scale them back and see how they look. I also notice there are a lot of Dex 20 characters. My Champions got me in the habit of making low-dex character (at least in comparison to a lot of other champs characters). I wouldn't likely make a starting human with a Dex 20. I tend to prefer to get CVs from skill levels and martial arts. Unless your concept is an extremely agile, acrobatic type, you're more likely to end up around 12 or 15, with 2-3 CSLs. Averaging around 6 Dex points, or 18 character points freed up, characters can easily throw that into a wacky "class ability", some more skills, or some martial arts.

Re: Some advice Ah, yes. I've seen the Surbrook writeups. I tried this back in 4e, and used them for inspiration. Obviously, the Fellowship is going to be higher-powered than starting heroes, but good to know where you're going. I noticed that Savinien's PCs are built on 100 pts. I built my guy so far on 150 pts, but could easily trim him down to 100. Do you recommend 100 over 150? I suppose LOTR characters are a bit lighter than a lot of D&D characters, but it's also possible that I will want to go with more experienced heroes, especially for a one-shot.

I'm working on a Lord of the Rings FH one-shot. I'm using the LOTR RPG that Steve actually wrote for Decipher as a guideline. I think the rules are basically good, but not balanced well. As characters, I'm converting over the sample characters from the Decipher book. Here's some questions: What are typical CVs and DCs for the various character types you use in FH? Particularly, a low-powered LOTR-style campaign. Starting off with, I have Menelcar, the Gondorian soldier with a Dex of 11, Str of 15, +2 CVs with his sword for a total of 6 (7 w/ his defensive strike), doing 1d6+1 (or 2d6 w/ his martial strike), and is wrapped in Chainmail (6 Def). His DCV is -1 in his armor (I'm going with a -1 or -2 DCV/Dex roll for mail, and he has 1 or 2 penalty levels to counter it). I'm giving him a shield as well (+3 DCV, I think), giving him a 6 normally, 8 with a block or defensive strike, and 9 when dodging. Haven't done the others yet, but Gror the dwarf will be a heavier tank, with higher Def and DCs, but similar CVs. Also, not as well rounded. The Archer will be low-Def, and high OCV & extra, conditional DCs with bows, naturally. As for the magician, I think I'm going to keep the magic light, to fit the genre. I'm taking liberties in allowing men to be mages, but that's the game. This is draft 1. Does anyone have any guidance on how these numbers will play out? Of course, I want characters to be hit reasonably often, but be able to avoid hits if they try hard enough. Also, I don't want people getting horribly mauled by every hit, especially since LOTR is armor-light.

And then I read the rules again. An object that has it's BODY drained crumbes to dust. Should I outlaw this power completely, or run it like above?

One of my players has been trying to come up with an EM pulse-like power to shut down elecrical devices. We tried an entangle, suppress, SPD drain, dispel, and maybe 1 or 2 others I don't remember. This time he suggested a BODY drain. I was about to say no when I thought about it. It will work automatically against foci despite their DEF, but the active points in the BODY drain will return after a couple turns, thus reactivating the device without damaging it. Also, I could buy Power Defense for the devices, defined as EM shielding. This is something I never thought of, but seems to handle the power fairly well. The next question, however, is should I house-rule the effects to represent objects that always have only 1 BODY. A 60 AP BODY Drain will drain 21 CPs worth of BODY, completely deactivating an object for 5-6 turns, or well beyond the duration of most fights. Should I give foci an automatic Power Defense, perhaps equal to its DEF? Shoud I house-rule a lessening of effect such as when you drain a defensive characteristic or power? How much should I reduce it?

Re: Magic systems in Champions Oh, that's a good one. Never thought of that. It seems to fit perfectly with the mystic concept too. Thanks.

Re: Magic systems in Champions Yeah, the "Tolkien Mage" is subtly styled after Gandalf. He's a normal mortal human, but he wears a gray coat and uses a staff. His powers aren't fire-based, but his style is definitely a supporting/useuful type character, rather than an offensive type. He's actually pretty screwed in combat, even against supers his level. Basically, his staff is bought as a +4 DC HA (pretty tough, I know, but with his 10 STR, he needs it just to hurt anybody), and +10 REC. Also, all of his powers are bought partially OAF. All of his spells in his multipower, as well as the the reserve, are 40 AP, with the last 20 points bough OAF. The idea is that the staff, which he crafted himself, helps him focus his power. He's like a low-powered hero without his staff, a normal powered hero with it. I just think that origins and sfx should be used as a guideline to limit powers. In the case of magic, it's hard to find obvious limitations for powers, and sometimes you need to be a little creative and use limits that might seem arbitrary.

How do people handle magic, i.e. superpowers with mystic origins and special effects in Champions? Personally, I feel that since magic can justify the use of almost any power , it should be restricted in creative ways, depending on the paradigm or "style" of magic being used. Hermetic magic could be restricted in the way that is described in Ars Magica, for instance, where the rules say you can't overrule God, can't affect the soul, and can't easily create something from nothing and make it last for any length of time. I created a character who followed a hermetic/tolkienesqe style of magic where any lethal (killing) power came with a price of corruption (a side effect of a BOECV transform which would turn him evil and enslave him until the plot said otherwise). Also, healing magic was very limited. Other mystics may have mastered the ability to do this without corruption, but they were in their own ways restricted. What do you think?

I'm planning to use the offical Millenium City Champions as occasional NPCs in the campaign I GM. However, I want the team for which the game itself is named after to be more than starting level heroes. In the campaign I play in (yes, I'm in 2 weekly Champions campaigns, heh), some players have been playing for nearly 10 years now (or maybe more- Jhamin?). In that game, we are all in the 450-550 point range. It is assumed that the Champions have at least been keeping up with us, if not staying a step ahead of us. Has anyone out there "leveled up" the Champions? If so, what sort of improvements did you make to them? I'm thinking of boosting the Champions in my own campaign up to about 450 or 500 points, with their AP limits at 70 or 75. Witchcraft, in particular, is getting much cooler stuff. Ironclad is getting a few brick tricks, but I don't know if I want to boost his strength or just throw on some maneuvers or a HA.

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools Why should you have to pay the control cost for an AP limit you can't use? I'm not talking about giving character points for not breaking rules, I'm talking about not making them pay points for something they can't use. What are you supposed to do if you want to have a pool of 120 points to buy powers with an AP limit of 60? Buy 2, 60 point VPPs? That's one way. Buy a 120 point VPP with a limit? That's another. Buy a 120 point VPP with the understanding that you can't go over 60 AP? That's another. I just think that since a 120 point VPP should allow you to build 120 AP powers, it should be at least a little cheaper if you can't. I don't think Taximan was out of order, I'm just saying that if a power is less effective, it should be cheaper. How about having a VPP only for building small powers under your campaign maximum? Like a 60 point VPP only for 20 or 30 AP powers? Like a minor gadget pool or utility belt? Or a pouch of simple spell scrolls? I think this should cost less than a standard 60 point VPP. The PC will know right off the bat that this will never contain a big blast power, and that makes it less effective.

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools