assault

Hello again, everyone! I just posted a new update of King Arthur, Queen Guinevere, Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahad, Sir Lamorak, and Sir Percival. I used Fantasy Hero 3rd Edition rules for a much simpler character design. Enjoy! 🙂
 
 

I'm referring to the pre-6e rule restricting damage to twice that of the basic weapon.
 
It's an optional rule in 6e.
 
Edit: also what LoneWolf said, but those Talents aren't in the edition I play (proving it sucks!).

So...
 
Hubby's (high school/college aged) niece & nephew want to get into D&D.  Not RPGs in general, D&D.  So, 5e.
 
...and they're coercing their respective SOs into playing...
 
...and their two cousins (who live next door, but are currently vacationing in Europe right now, but are also drop in-drop out sort of players)...
 
...and Hubby wants to play...
 
...so, guess who's GMing?
 
The 1st Session Zero was last week, because I want to make sure they know my table will be a safe place -- and that I don't like murderhobing/PVP.  That actions will have consequences and please, don't cross the line with Problematic Stuff.
 
Nephew's GF (who really isn't as enthused as Nephew):  Can I play EVIL?
 
Me (fighting down the throbbing vein that's just popped up on my temple) *stresses I prefer heroes and, since y'all are 1st lvl newbies anyways, ya gotta earn your spot into becoming a BBEG*
 
Talk about various classes et al begins (I'm only sticking with the PHB because I don't want to deal with excess bookkeeping).  Remember, there are still two players I'm waiting on...
 
Party so far... Hubby: Halfling Light cleric Niece: Wood Elf Rogue (eager for Arcane Trickster) Niece's BF: Mountain Dwarf Bard Nephew: Human Ranger Nephew's GF: I WANNA BE A PRINCESS~! (human sorceress) Vein continues to throb, but I can potentially make it work.  Initially, she also wanted to be DaenerysplayaDragonborn, but Dragonborn aren't "pretty".  Thank Arneson for small miracles there.  Going with the "runaway princess doesn't wanna a forced marriage" trope here.  Still missing the two cousins, so tonight I just wanna focus on combat and mechanics, look over what's been made and answer any que--
 
Hubby, last night:  Oh, btw, ANOTHER cousin will be joining the group -- THEY ARE SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS~!
 
Me, sighing: ...how much did you oversell me...?
 

Nice toys!

2d6 is pretty easy even on fairly low point totals.
 
Plain old sword: 1d6+1.
18 Str takes it to 1 1/2.
Skill levels take it to 2.
 
That's without Martial Arts.
 
Of course a plain old sword will max out at 2 1/2d6, unless you allow otherwise.

I'm referring to the pre-6e rule restricting damage to twice that of the basic weapon.
 
It's an optional rule in 6e.
 
Edit: also what LoneWolf said, but those Talents aren't in the edition I play (proving it sucks!).

Personally, if I was in the US, I'd be in there on Dr.Device's side with both hands, and to heck with fake civility (tone policing), "both sides"-ism and pearl clutching in general.

The perfect being the enemy of the good argument is usually used to justify settling for something less than you can get. Whenever you hear it, demand more. Not meaningless "perfection", but more.

And there I go getting excited about things I can't do anything about... Can't resist it sometimes.

I'd come across his origin story in Champions Beyond, but it's good to know there's more to read up on in Book of the Destroyer; thank you. And it'd be nice to see what Silver Age Champions would look like, but I can't think of anyone other than Darren I'd trust to do it justice. I was a bit late to the party, but after hearing the sad news I did some reading up on the various books he'd done for HERO, and I couldn't believe how much of the Champions univese was formally laid out by him. He left a tremendous legacy behind, even if he did pass much too soon.
 
He's also the writer who got me into HERO in the first place, thanks to Lucha Libre HERO. A book I bought on a whim because it was discounted and sounded funny, and it turned out to be such a faithful and respectful treatment of the genre that I was an immediate convert.

I actually use the phrase with the people in my team, drafting documents, to stop them putting in excessive hours trying to make a briefing document perfect, long after it is good enough to go out.

Personally, if I was in the US, I'd be in there on Dr.Device's side with both hands, and to heck with fake civility (tone policing), "both sides"-ism and pearl clutching in general.

The perfect being the enemy of the good argument is usually used to justify settling for something less than you can get. Whenever you hear it, demand more. Not meaningless "perfection", but more.

And there I go getting excited about things I can't do anything about... Can't resist it sometimes.

Unfortunately, part of my moderator duty is to do work that some might consider tone policing, so forgive me when I inform the posters here....
 
Well done, gang! You're keeping it pretty civil with each other, you aren't attacking other posters even when you disagree with them, and you express understandable fury against some truly unjust situations without projecting it on other members of the community.
 
Which is more mature than I see in 95% of all internet debates. Thank you. You're being class acts.
 
 

@Pattern Ghost
{I'm not going to quote because the nested quotes are getting out of hand, and it's not really necessary]
 
First, I want to say that I do appreciate that you acknowledge the threats that folks like me are facing. I do have a lot of anger, but what you're seeing here is more frustration (not that there's a bright line between the two).
 
My problem with "The fact is that elements on BOTH sides have become quite a bit too heated lately" is twofold.
 
First,  tone policing always favors those in power. I and other have been repeatedly accused of raising the heat (in general, I'm not talking about here) by pointing out that there is a thriving campaign on the right to eliminate us, which is a simple statement of fact, backed up with evidence. It's not, what's raising the heat is the fact that they're trying to eliminate us.
 
Second, most of the time I see any "both side" argument these days, it's being used by someone as an excuse to keep voting for republicans, or dismiss the concerns being expressed by LGBTQIA+ folks. I appreciate that that is not what you're doing, but I'd ask you to keep in mind that for many people, the moment they hear "both sides" they stop listening.
 
And then there's the more emotional aspect.
Analogies suck, but I'm going to make one anyway. Let's say that we have two people, Alice and Jane. Alice's sister has a bad cold. Jane has lung cancer. Every time Jane brings up something about her cancer, like how she's having trouble getting her insurance to cover a new treatment, or that chemo has been killing her appetite, Alice brings up how miserable her sister's cold is making her. She never says that the cold is as bad as Jane's cancer, but she always takes that opportunity to talk about it. I'd think Jane could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps Alice is minimizing the cancer by regularly bringing up the cold.
 
That's what I'm dealing with. Almost anywhere outside explicitly queer spaces that I bring up the attacks on trans people, someone will chime in talking about how some people on the left are mean, too. It's immensely frustrating, and does come across as minimizing what is being done to us. 
 
 
 

Do you have any actual examples of anyone influential on the left calling for the eradication of any of the groups I mentioned (white people, conservatives, christians)? Examples of anyone influential on the left demonizing those groups in the way prominent conservative politicians and pundits demonize LGBTQIA+ people and other marginalized populations?  Specifically, any examples that are spreading hate based on those qualities (whiteness, conservatism, christianity) and not on actual behaviors? 
 
Because if you're going to count hatred based on actual behaviors, then sure. I hate Trump. I hated Pat Robertson and will let you imagine my feelings about his death. I hate Greg Abbot and Ken Paxton. None of them for who they are, but for what they have done. What they are doing. That is in no way equivalent to them hating me for who I am.
 
Please give me some examples that are within two orders of magnitude of DeSantis and his stooges making it effectively illegal for me to exist in the state of Florida. Give me some examples within even two orders of magnitude of an influential conservative voice speaking at CPAC and calling for the eradication of trans people. How about something anywhere remotely in the ballpark of a pastor with a congregation numbering the thousands calling for the parents of trans kids to be shot in the head?
 
The two sides are not in anyway close, and to keep saying they are is minimizing the threat to me and mine, and is deeply insulting.

Republic and Oligarchy were nearly synonymous. Plutocracy is mostly a redundant category. Oligarchs could be land owners, merchants or both.
 
Venice was notionally a republic, but closer to an elective monarchy in some ways as GDShore pointed out. And that's a reminder that non-hereditary monarchies existed.

Oligarchies were often city-states, but could extend beyond that. The Roman Republic is the most obvious example.

More democratic forms existed. In ancient Greece, cities that depended on the oarsmen of their fleets would often have to enfranchise them. Athens is the classic example. Such democracies were unstable, and usually short-lived, interspersed with periods of oligarchy and so on.

A better medieval example were the various peasant communes/cantons/republics that mainly existed in marginal lands - swamps, mountains etc.

If you are bothered by how such setups (any of these) could exist in a world with wizards and monsters, just add in a couple of high powered characters that don't exercise ruling power. Paladin types, hermit wizards, monastic clerics...
 
---

Off topic now, but even monarchies can be weird. Apart from the elective monarchies (like, for example, the Holy Roman Empire!), there were weird ones like the ones on Sardinia, where the kings were originally know as Judges. That's where you would find the Judicates of Cagliari and Arborea.

Then there are states that are self-governing but without the status of kingdoms. There were plenty of fancy titles to go around there. (Wildgraves, Raugraves...).

There were places ruled by appointed governors too. If you want a term other than governor, you could use Captain or Admiral (typical of an overseas colony, naturally). Or a notionally Church-ruled state might be ruled in practice by a secular Advocate (or similar title).

Regencies can be individual or collective. In the latter case, it's rule by committee, although power is rarely equally shared. It doesn't always end in violence.

Areas where the official government has little power can fall into a kind of fractal state, where power is exercised by local leaders (often warlords), who wield monarchical style power on a local basis. Or if they can't, power falls into the hands of even more localised leaders... These situations can often happen in border areas, with raiding happening both across the notional borders and between groups on the same side. (The Anglo-Scottish Borders were an example at various times.)

Speaking of which, if an area has poor farmland, and is economically reliant on grazing, raiding is likely. Livestock is easy to steal. If it happens enough, you have an equivalent of the Wild West.
 
The opposite case, where the government is actually able to govern, can see power being exercised by royal appointees (Sheriffs, etc), at the expense of local lords. Of course the Sherrifs are usually local lords too, complete with rivals and feuds. The Sheriff of Snottingham and the Earl of Snottingham may not be on friendly terms, even if they are cousins. This is natural, since the Sheriff wields powers that "should" belong to the Earl. (The upstart!).

... and so on...
 
If you have access to them, L Sprague de Camp's Novarian series is relevant.

To the extent that the conservative side actually believes that they are under any sort of threat comparable to what LGBTQIA+ and other marginalized individuals are under, they are deeply delusional.  No one significant on the left wants to wipe out conservatives, or christians, or white people. Republican leaders are taking active steps to wipe me and mine out.
 
There is no equivalence.

Would not the Hero rule of Round in character’s favor apply? I would think so.

Yeah, I gave them all in PDF, but I got a chunk of them in hard copy, they were difficult to come across in the UK.

I think the one Assualt mentions was from issue 8 (1986)...

There is no (RAW) SPD related nerfing in any edition.

Assuming we are talking about Green Dragon, 9d6 is correct for the kick.

Under editions 1-3, the base cost of Martial Arts for a character with 15 Str was 15 points. That gave a +1 modifier to Martial Kick, so 6d6.

For half the value of the character's Str (7.5 in this case, rounding to 7), the modifier would increase by +0.5. So if the character spends 22 points, the kick would do 3 (from Str), multiplied by 2.5. So, 7.5d6 (rounded or otherwise - that's a separate question).

Another such increase, bringing to total MA spend to 30 points, would add another +0.5 to the kick, meaning it would do 3x Str damage, bringing it up to 9d6.

These calculations may seem clumsy (they are!), but a character who spends 35 points on Str (from a base of 10, giving 45 Str), will also do 9d6. A character who spends 45 points on Energy Blast will also do 9d6. These costs are balanced against each other, each with different advantages and disadvantages.
 
 

Oh, I remember I wrote this... I suppose I had better follow it up.

2e and 3e's guidelines were the same, although 2e suggested 225 point characters and 3e suggested 250. There was a bunch of extra things you could spend points on in 250, notably the skills from Champions II. In fact, if you did go for a bunch of those, it could be quite hard to tell a 3e and 4e character apart at first glance.

Anyway... the guidelines presented allowed you to buy a basic set of characteristics and powers for 200 points, and then you were supposed to pad the character out from there.

The characteristic suggestions were:
Dex: 18-30, centering on 20-23.
Con: 18-33, centering on 18-23.
PD: 8-28, centering on 12-18.
ED: 8-28, centering on 12-18.
SPD: 4-6, centering on 5.
Spending about 100 points here would make you pretty nice.

For powers:
Attack powers: 40-60 points.
Defenses: 20-40 points.
Movement: 10-40 points.
Again, 100 points here would work pretty well.

That's not factoring in Limitations, which would allow you to get close to the maximum values across a range of things, and exceed them in some.

You can see that, not counting skill levels, characters would have between 6-10 CV (very few would have 6!), attacks of 8-12 DC, and appropriate, or higher(!) defenses.

Frankly, the results were pretty close to 4-6e standards, although you wouldn't usually have a big menu of attacks. Characters tended to be simpler at first, but could grow in complexity fairly quickly.

Of course, since everyone was new at this, overcomplex and unbalanced builds were all over the place.

1e didn't have this stuff, but had the sample characters, and a suggestion that 40-50 points in a power was pretty good, and 100 was generally wonderful. (I think this was repeated in 2e and 3e, but I can't see it immediately.) If you used 100 as a hard cap, a lot of abusive builds were manageable. (From Facebook discussions involving early Hero Games alumni, I get the impression that George MacDonald's games did this, at least effectively.)

EDIT: oh, and in the survey alluded to upthread games along these parameters were the most common, although there were plenty of others. IIRC, attacks averaged out at about 11d6, which is within the range suggested, although at the higher end.

The survey was actually fairly early on in the Adventurer's Club run, which limped along sporadically for years.
 

On a bus now, but I will break it down for 1-3e when I get home.
 
Short version: 2e and 3e gave explicit guidelines. 1e included suggestions. If you followed them, a lot of 1e's bugs would be less of an issue.

You say that like "CHARGE!" isn't a battle plan!

'Tis a silly place.

This is an interesting scenario with a lot of different ways to play out at the table. I'd be interested in hearing about how it goes for anybody who gets a chance to run this.
 
If I wanted to guess how things will turn out then I suppose it would depend a great deal on what the dragon's government was like before it was deposed. If the dragon was mostly hands-off and left the day-to-day running of the country to mortal servants then that infrastructure could quite easily survive the transition. People probably won't approve of the dragon's servants, but political inertia and the fact that they're the ones paying the wages for the armies and mercenaries will go a long way to keeping them in power. There would be a number of better options for government, no doubt, and many will spring up in the wake of the dragon's death, but I can easily see these reformist factions fighting each other over the best way to fix everything unless you give them something to rally around. Of course, I'm sure the heroes who slew the dragon could serve as this focus for a new society, if they were so inclined.
 
On the other hand, if the dragon was a micro-manager who had to oversee every stage of the government machine no matter how inefficient it was (in the way that a lot of dictators tend to do in real life) then there's the possibility that whatever political apparatus is in place isn't robust enough to handle its overlord disappearing. If the country is wholly focused around the dragon as the supreme ruler then it might not have enough redundancy in place to cope, which would create an opening for a more radical faction to take over.
 
So a lot of this scenario would depend on what kind of ruler you see the Dragon King as having been, to my mind. While I can see the appeal of a truly intelligent dragon who defies convention by setting up an efficient society, I do think it's not unlikely that the sort of personality given to this kind of dictatorship be the sort to run it haphazardly. Horses for courses and all that.