MrAgdesh

Much of what is in them is defined. A D&D Fireball spell does what it says on the tin. Hero just gives me Blast or RKA then adds in various AoE modifiers, maybe Reduced Endurance and says; "Have at it". The fact that a gaming table could all theoretically have Fire Mages with suites of spells all substantially different to one another is awesome, but off-putting to players who want to just pick up and play. At least, it is to many gamers I know.

This is a really good point. There is an inherent problem with Hero that in order to make it a great game you first have to have played it - extensively - and learned where the abuse lies. For you, as your view of abuse might be very different to the next guy's. Unless you are really initially hooked on the game system you will probably abandon it in favour of less intense systems that you don't need to know inside out before you can even run them. I've known groups that tried it, declared "Speed is Broken!" and then went off to play something else rather than fix Speed. I know this because I bought all of one guy's books as spares. I've seen some threads that say Hero's fault is that whilst it has plenty of sourcebooks it doesn't really have any scenarios to help you get into the game and 'hit the floor running'. The problem here is that even if there were a scenario written, it would most likely still need redesign by the GM to fit into his own particular game view. It's not like D&D where if you buy an "adventure for character levels X-Y" you know pretty much you'll get what you purchased. With Hero there is a lot more open to interpretation and that would be the case even if you specify "An adventure for Fantasy Hero for Standard Heroic characters". Using Turakian Age for example, if I were ever to run it, I'd have to redesign all of the Renowned of Ambrethel, as they are far too tough for my tastes. Now, most GMs say that they all tweak purchased adventures - to some degree - to fit what they want, but I'm talking major re-writes with Hero.

This could be a good thing for other industry ‘players’ with a migration of D&D’s player base.

There is also news on the Chaosium website about this tragedy. Condolences to his friends and family.

Probably the only way that those Jedi could afford a lightsaber!

If there is one thing that I've taken away from the Arrows vs Armour videos its that plate is great vs arrows and chainmail not at all. But this ties in perfectly with the "Bashing, Slashing, and Piercing Damage" options (FH6Epg 205). So chainmail would only offer a 3rPD vs arrows if the archer makes a STR/DEX roll when they attack. So (for Jolrhos) perhaps these (optional) rules are already there, just need highlighting to include them? As Hugh said earlier, there are gameplay vs realism considerations, but having played 1E HarnMaster way back when - that had extensive rules for fighting against the multiple layers that something like a plate or chain wearer would have - it was incredibly drawn out and the nitty gritty was simply too much for me.

In FH I recall rules for targeting holes in damaged armour. Maybe something like this?

I'm personally not a fan of giving the armour an Activation Roll, simply because that makes it all or nothing. That simulates a hit to the face with an open helm or direct visor hit but doesn't work for hitting 'between the plates' where a chainmail hauberk and haubergeon should stop at least some of the trauma. I prefer the gaps in the armour being simulated by the actual damage rolled, so with the 1 1/2d6 medium bow maxing out at 9 BODY it has hit between the plates (or maybe penetrated slightly through the plate due to a 'perfect storm' of circumstances).

There's some evidence to suggest that steel arrow heads were preferred; Although, even if steel heads were successfully commissioned by various English nobles, the penetrative capabilities of such were perhaps only slightly greater? (7:40 into the video).

I’ve always charged for magical items that you wish to start play with but never for anything found. My players never abused anything they found by overuse. In fact, many of the items were given away or sacrificed to gods. If a player wanted to make a found item integral to their character then I’d charge some points but that would require a reasonable justification (somehow becomes mystically/symbiotically tied to you, maybe an intelligent item etc)

Do any of you use anything like this for a Natural 3 or 18? I know that we have the Critical Hit mechanic but I'm talking about specifically the buzz of a rolled 3. Namely, there has never been one in HERO games that I've played - not like rolling a Nat 20 in a certain other well-known system. Let's face it, a 3 is just so much more impressive than a 20, too, by a factor of 10 or so! Typically, a 3 has tended to be something like "I'll give you a couple of extra DCs damage" and a catastrophic 18 has only been "make a DEX roll or fall prone/ drop your weapon". I think that for Heroic level games, especially the next one that I run, I want to have something like this in place, so I've run up some tables of my own (still a work in progress). I like the idea of a 3 standing a chance to turn the tide of battle, regardless of whether it's a Crit Hit or not.

There is also the social complication that might arise from warriors wearing heavy armour within the borders of foreign powers. It might well be seen as declaring an Act of War. This was a huge thing in the various Bushido campaigns that I've played over the years, and could easily be a thing for pseudo-European settings. Also, the odd sea-faring scenario thrown in should mean you wear light armours at best.

Re: the OP question as to whether or not bows should do less damage (for the Jolrhos Player's Guide specifically) A Very Heavy longbow does 2d6+1 and has an 18 STR min. That, on average, will bounce from full plate armour's DEF of 8. An above average damage roll (or crit) I assume has just hit at "the right angle" to penetrate. There won't be many of the populace with 18 STR though so the majority of longbowmen you face are likely to be light to medium bow users; 1d6 - 1 1/2d6, meaning that only the medium bowmen can squeeze 1 pip of BODY through on full plate if they roll maximum damage (or a critical). To me, the damage therefore seems about right? (I'm a big fan of the optional Bows vs Crossbows rules too; HSEG: Pg 32)

It’s still my go to for the vast majority of campaign ideas; especially Fantasy, Space Opera, Swashbuckling, and of course, Supers. I’m currently running Aces & Eights Reloaded and Delta Green. I find that for these niches (realistic Western and conspiratorial cosmic horror) that those systems work just fine.

I'm only familiar with the 1E AD&D version of Pass Without Trace - which wasn't actually about bypassing dense undergrowth at all, but simply hiking across various types of terrain (snow, sand, mud etc) without leaving footprints or scent. If you want to pass through Barriers, or just thick undergrowth, without leaving trace that you've been through (no footprints or scent) then Hugh's suggestion of a very limited Desolid seems perfect. If you want to pass through them but aren't bothered about leaving tracks then Tunneling is also elegant. The SFX of either could be that the foliage "parts before you and seals up behind you" but only the former would leave no evidence that you've passed through - to standard senses anyhow.

Rather than being Stunned, perhaps it's a feature of Knockdown?

Synchronously, this has been something I've asked of some OSR players recently. How common was/is Raise/Resurrection in your games? The answers were mainly 'exceedingly rare' to 'quite common'. There didn't seem to be much of a mid-ground. I asked it largely because it seems as though the main objection of Old School DMs was the "invulnerability" of 5E D&D characters, i.e., "It's too hard to kill them". Personally, I feel that whilst the threat of death should loom large, I don't see that as the primary way to challenge them. I try not to kill my characters willy-nilly as I invest a lot of time into weaving them into the campaign. As I've always been a GM who has had Raising been very rare, that's a lot of wasted work. In any case, if you kill PCs readily but allow Raising as fairly commonplace, what are you achieving? On a related note, I've always been interested in the general ability of healing/curing in D&D communities via the clergy and how that impacts day to day life. Any village with even a resident 1st level cleric would be significantly different to a real-world medieval community.

Hi Christopher The Codex mentions that it is a companion to the Jolrhos Player’s Guide but I can’t find that on Drivethru. I hope your health is improving. (Edit: Ignore this request as I've found the necessary info on Kestrel Arts webpage)

I remember watching a UK documentary about exactly this. New evidence (pig iron arrowheads retrieved from excavations at Agincourt) suggested that the longbow arrows were not at all effective against the French knights’ armour. The conclusion was that Henry was a master strategist and bottle-necked the French cavalry into a muddy mire (records tell of several days of heavy rain prior to the battle). with the knights in non-porous metal armour - as opposed to Henry’s largely serf conscripts in cloth - the quagmire literally bogged the knights down. Once their horses faltered and the knights came off, many simply drowned in the mud. Or *were* drowned, or stabbed through visors and gaps in their armour. It came to be that many knights yielded and expected to be ransomed as per custom but when Henry’s advisors realised that the captured still vastly outnumbered his peasants, many more were murdered as a precaution. So, the longbow dominance may be a romanticism. It was probably more about pointy stabby weapons, mud, and the great unwashed masses enjoying a chance to stiff the nobility for once!

Well, Summon is a full phase to use and the Summoned beings are Stunned and disoriented for their own first phase so I figure that's about right anyway.

There is a GM option that allows for unrestricted amounts of Summoning (where you repeatedly Summon 1 being at a time) but I feel that having all 7 skeletons ready to attack together, rather than just 1, is a definite advantage so it should be paid for. I'm leaning toward Autofire where each Charge Summons 1 Skeleton.

Yeah, but that's how charges interact with an Instant Attack (RKA) power. Summon is also Instant but not an attack and has has an effect that lingers (the Summoned being). If I want up to 7 skeletons at once (as there are in the film) and I take 7 charges then I could, as written, summon a total of 49 skeletons with a max of 7 at one time. I want each charge to represent 1 skeleton but the ability to summon several of them at once, with the charges Never Recovering. I'm wondering if Ndeare's Autofire might be the answer. Or the 'At the GM's option' being a handwave.

Regarding the Children of the Hydra in the movie Jason and the Argonauts (1963). I thought that this was an easy build - Summon up to 7 (8x) 135pt Skeletons (6E Bestiary), 7 Charges, Slavishly Loyal, Must be Summoned on natural earth (-1/4) But with the way that Charges interact with Summon then not quite. In the movie, each Charge is a tooth, and the number of teeth that you hurl to the ground creates a skeleton. But Charges allow you to bring forth the maximum number of creatures summonable with each charge. This would result in 49 skeletons (of which you may have at most 7 at one time, but that's still too many). If I build it as a single Summon of one skeleton and then try to repeat it with the remaining 6 charges that’s not technically legit as; “Generally the most beings a character can have Summoned at one time with a specific Summon-based power equals the maximum number of beings he can Summon at once, regardless of how many times he uses the Summon.” 6E1 pg 289. Of course, the GM’s option on the same page allows for a character to reuse his Summon without restriction, so is it just a case of that, or is there some well-worded Limitation that I’m missing for the Charges?

This just stems from a little design project (Din Djarin/ The Mandalorian) costed up at the beginning of Season 1 compared to the end of Season 2. Whilst he's spent some points on Skills, Characteristics, and buying off Complications, most of his 'points' are in all of the wonderful toys he acquires. Yes, I know you don't pay points for kit in Heroic level games but I wanted to calculate it just to see how many points he'd improved by due to GM fiat. His armour for example starts off as just a pure Beskar pauldron and helmet, whilst other parts are of Durasteel alloy. He gets a pretty much full Beskar upgrade by the end, hence me asking about Activation Rolls for coverage. I suppose it's also useful to break things down for cases like a gladiator's manica (locations 6-9 and possibly 10) which would seem to be about a 9- Activation. Regarding locations; 3 is the face (and also throat?) 4 the sides of the head, and 5 the scalp? Is the 10-11 of chest meant to represent the left/right pectoral regions or just the whole chest area?