Damage Limits

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Erm, no, I was just talking about the meaning (or lack thereof) of "points" in a setting.

 

Regarding actual crafting and enchanting, there's a dozen different possible explanations for combining that - or not. Your average dwarven miracle smith will enchant and craft at the same time, probably with no meaningful difference between those two steps. Probably influenced by the superstitious actions done by actual smiths, who tried a lot of arcane and often superfluous stuff to get the right kind of steel for their swords, as they didn't really understand the science of metallurgy.

 

Your D&D-esque wizard on the other hand might take a finished product and just add some enchantment to it. The original might have to be as perfect as possible, or could be any ordinary sword.

 

As a third popular option, magical weapons aren't even made per se. They gain powers by being carried around by heroes and demigods, partaking in their aura.

 

Tolkien is definitely more on the mythical, legendary side of things, were actual crafting was more important.

There were items which were "magical" in Middle Earth simply for having been used in powerful events. But, to be more precise, there's no division between "magic" and "mundane" in Middle Earth, IMU.

[mhd]

Re: Damage Limits

 

As your typical "golden age -> miserable world we live in" mythical background, there's also little to no difference between "ancient" and "magical" in middle earth.

 

A fantasy trend I'm generally not too fond of, just like the whole "wise kings of old" trope. I do like technological and social progress, even in romantic fantasy worlds, although I'm not all David Brin/Michael Moorcock about it…

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Damage Limits

 

As your typical "golden age -> miserable world we live in" mythical background, there's also little to no difference between "ancient" and "magical" in middle earth.

 

A fantasy trend I'm generally not too fond of, just like the whole "wise kings of old" trope. I do like technological and social progress, even in romantic fantasy worlds, although I'm not all David Brin/Michael Moorcock about it…

Saruman of many Devices - Saruman, Central. Central, Saruman. Crossover with David Drake's The Generals series.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Damage Limits

 

One additional question: Assuming I adopt the doubling damage parameters from 6E2 99, what's your suggestion on dealing with martial arts and/or general unarmed combat? Those will reach the ceiling pretty easily. It's probably not a big issue if your STR 15 guy gets limited to a 6d6 haymaker in the occasional brawl, but I'm not so sure about "proper" martial artists, i.e. PCs who mainly use unarmed combat. As far as I read it, the only thing that adds to the base damage of an Offensive Strike is STR and MA DC. So to actually get something out of it (compared to Martial Strike), you'd need STR 15-20 and/or 1-2 DCs, right? Which generally increases the power level of the fighter, of course.

 

Not sure whether I'd just deal with that, make an exemption for MA maneuvers or have some Offensive Strike-specific perk/power.

 

I personally use the characters STR plus the Martial Arts maneuver damage as Base Damage for unarmed Martial Arts. I count Haymaker in this equation, since it is a maneuver, the Haymaker plus STR is Base Damage for unarmed attacks. Of course for weapons, the weapons damage is it's Base Damage, and STR, MA, Manuevers, Skill Levels etc are bonus damage. For Unarmed attacks, STR + MA/Maneuver equals Base Damage, Skill Levels, velocity bonuses etc are bonus damage. This brings STR in lower powered games in line with weapons for damage they are capable of dealing out and thus, Martial Artist characters aren't unduly penalized this way.

[Christopher]

Re: Damage Limits

 

I personally use the characters STR plus the Martial Arts maneuver damage as Base Damage for unarmed Martial Arts. I count Haymaker in this equation' date=' since it is a maneuver, the Haymaker plus STR is Base Damage for unarmed attacks.[/quote']

Per RAW only the STR is Base Damage.

I never count Haymaker as it has serious penalties. It's the "kill someone in his Sleep", "Coup de grace" or "Sniper" maneuver for me. Especially I never count it in Combination with MA, as it can't combine with Martial Arts (the ineffectiveness of non-martial Maneuvers is another balancing factor for Martial Arts).

[Markdoc]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Rules as the primary arbiter of a fantasy world? I guess I don't need a lot of points to reduce infant mortality to almost zero' date=' probably just a few levels of Paramedics per village. Why would I create a blade then, zappity or not? Or heck, 1 point of SS and I've got my black powder.[/quote']

 

Exactly! You are making my point for me here!

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of saying "It's easier to make magic swords than magic zappy sticks". As GM, you can choose to make it so, but there's nothing in the rules, traditional myth or common sense, for that matter to suggest it should be so. If you had stated "As GM, I prefer that it is easier to make magic swords than magic wands", then that'd be fine.

 

And I know that some players long for magic items. One of my players, who is our D&D GM, and also a keen online RPG player obviously felt that her character was incomplete without magic arms and armour and was always trying to drag the rest of the group on treasure hunts (a useful GM hook, heh, heh - any hint that a magic sword could be found somewhere set her to badgering the group, until the rumour had been tracked down.)

 

I'm not slamming the idea: I play quite happily in a game where magic shops exist and PCs upgrade their magic items they way we upgrade our consumer goods. I am slamming the idea that it is or should be some sort of default. It's entirely up to the GM.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Caps provide for character progression. Without something to measure by' date=' numbers are contextless.[/quote']

 

They also provide character straitjackets. Like it or not, caps are seen by most players as benchmarks, and most players will aim to hit the caps as fast as possible. They tend (in my experience) to encourage cookie-cutter characters. They also generate fairness issues, if the PCs are capped, but their opponents are not. We abandoned caps long ago, and I have seen nothing to make me want to go back.

 

The context that players measure their progression by - IMO - has always been other PCs/NPCs, not caps.

 

On the damage level from weapons, only the actual weapon damage is base. STR adds, MA adds, levels can add, but none of them alter the base damage. I do enforce the 2x max limit on weapons, with the proviso that players can go over that limit, with the risk of breaking or damaging their weapon.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Damage Limits

 

I'm not slamming the idea: I play quite happily in a game where magic shops exist and PCs upgrade their magic items they way we upgrade our consumer goods.

Look at that, the new iSword: It plays music and has a plug and play Crystall Ball Interface.

 

They also provide character straitjackets. Like it or not' date=' caps are seen by most players as benchmarks, and most players will aim to hit the caps as fast as possible. They tend (in my experience) to encourage cookie-cutter characters. They also generate fairness issues, if the PCs are capped, but their opponents are not. We abandoned caps long ago, and I have seen nothing to make me want to go back.[/quote']

They are nessesary for new players. I certainly still need them to make my characters, would have no idea if my attack/defense fit's what I am planning.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Damage Limits

 

They also provide character straitjackets. Like it or not, caps are seen by most players as benchmarks, and most players will aim to hit the caps as fast as possible. They tend (in my experience) to encourage cookie-cutter characters. They also generate fairness issues, if the PCs are capped, but their opponents are not. We abandoned caps long ago, and I have seen nothing to make me want to go back.

 

The context that players measure their progression by - IMO - has always been other PCs/NPCs, not caps.

 

On the damage level from weapons, only the actual weapon damage is base. STR adds, MA adds, levels can add, but none of them alter the base damage. I do enforce the 2x max limit on weapons, with the proviso that players can go over that limit, with the risk of breaking or damaging their weapon.

 

cheers, Mark

Hmm...Well, I'll put trying some stuff without caps on the list.

[mhd]

Re: Damage Limits

 

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of saying "It's easier to make magic swords than magic zappy sticks". As GM' date=' you can [b']choose [/b] to make it so, but there's nothing in the rules, traditional myth or common sense, for that matter to suggest it should be so.

 

I thought we were talking about a somewhat traditional mythical/fantasy setting. If not, sure, anything goes. Some planetary romance backgrounds would actually give zap "sticks" and swords pretty equal importance. My point was just that the setting framework defines the ubiquity of statistical spread of magical items more than the rules, and given the symbolic importance of specifically swords amongst all weapons, I'd rate them pretty high regarding their frequency (within their power bracket).

 

Never mind that "magical" by itself doesn't say a lot per se. You could have a normal, by the rules, no points necessary "magic sword" without any rules differences. Maybe it's just a bit more shiny, maybe not even that. It just needs a bit of "brand recognition". And on the other hand, you could have a mundane "elite" weapon, maybe made by the best smith or out of a special alloy, etc. Something that mechanically gives you a bonus.

 

In my experience, players like both in equal measure. Getting better and showing that you've gotten better. (Not counting the systems where you really, really *need* them, because the whole leveling system is including their bonuses.)

 

So to get back to the topic a bit more, flavor set aside, it doesn't really matter that much whether added damage is coming from weapons or the abilities of the characters, if both are possible (which it is in HERO, not so much in D&D, f. ex.). Magical weapons raising damage caps does change that, of course.

 

So regarding magical weapons, right now it looks like I'd make the decision on a campaign by campaign basis. If I'm playing a setting with frequent magical weaponry, either the caps or magic raising caps would have to go, as it doesn't make much sense having both a rule and a very common way to circumvent it. If magic swords etc. are limited to epic heroes and in general the PCs aren't, then it might be something to strive for, of course.

 

For this specific campaign, I'm a bit on the fence. There's going to be a few high-PD/ED enemies around, and I'll have to consider whether I want the PCs to fight them using "normal" weapons (even if enchanted) or whether they'd have to get some special equipment for dealing with that (the equivalent of anti-vehicular weapons). I think I'll go with the latter, as this mostly would apply to creatures made out of solid steel and the like, regular weapons still fare pretty well against your run-of-the-mill 30 ft crocodile and similar fantasy critters and chimeras.

[Markdoc]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Look at that' date=' the new iSword: It plays music and has a plug and play Crystall Ball Interface.[/quote']

 

I know. I enjoy the game I'm playing in, but I could never run by-the-book D&D myself as a GM: I simply couldn't keep a straight face

 

are nessesary for new players. I certainly still need them to make my characters' date=' would have no idea if my attack/defense fit's what I am planning.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure caps are necessary for new players: I've trained a lot of hero gamers over the years. Guidelines are necessary, but guidelines are not caps. As an example, in the last game, one player wanted his character to be really strong. I pointed out that 20 STR was hugely strong (as strong as 4 strong men!) and that to go over 20 STR meant paying double cost, so he went with that. Much later in the game, when he had met (and fought) a few STR 18 guys and even 1 or 2 STR 20 guys, and one other PC came up on 20 STR, he went to 23. I think it's important that the GM plays by the guidelines, too: if I tell my player that STR 20 is hugely strong, then it should be. The PC did eventually cross swords with someone as strong as him, but that was a) an exceptional individual and more than 2 years (real time) into the game. So for much of the game he was simply the strongest guy around.

 

But it wasn't a cap. He could (and did) choose to go over it, and there were a few NPCs who were likewise over it. Any of the others PCs could have done the same, but they chose not to.

 

What I have found is that without caps, players tend to develop differently. Because there is no "upper limit" there's no incentive to go straight to that limit. So players tend to go to "pretty damn good" and then either stop or only invest points there occasionally. As a result in the last game we had one guy who was massively strong, another who was supremely quick, another who was enormously charismatic, and one who had an enormous EGO (well, most of them had enormous egos, but you know what I mean ) plus a couple of all-rounders.

 

If there had been a hard cap, instead, we would have ended up with a bunch of PCs clustered at that cap, so you couldn't be "the strongest guy" or "the fastest guy" because (if not most) several PCs would be at the same level.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Damage Limits

 

So to get back to the topic a bit more' date=' flavor set aside, it doesn't really matter that much whether added damage is coming from weapons or the abilities of the characters, if both are possible (which it is in HERO, not so much in D&D, f. ex.). Magical weapons raising damage caps does change that, of course.[/quote']

But they don't have to raise the damage Cap at all. When normal Swords are built as 5 DC KA (1.5d6), just make the Armor Piercing Magical Sword at 5 DC as well (1d6+1 +1/4 Advantage). As long as Real Weapon and (i think) STR Minimum Stay in the game, it still can't do morethan a normal Sword times 2 DC.

 

Alternative you can just define the Doubling as Campaign Rule wich would mean everything is affected, regardless if the Base Attack is a Magical +5 Sword and regardless of the Limitations on it.

[Markdoc]

Re: Damage Limits

 

I thought we were talking about a somewhat traditional mythical/fantasy setting.

 

I was. Magic swords are only relatively common in traditional myth and fantasy, if by "traditional" you mean "like D&D". In written fantasy, I'd regard Conan as pretty trad. sword and sorcery, and he goes through his whole career without owning a magic sword, as do Fafrhd and the Grey Mouser. There's plenty of magic and even a few magic weapons, but they're all plot device stuff, destroyed or lost once used. Lord of the Rings falls into Trad. fantasy, too, albeit more at the epic end, I would have thought. It does have magic swords: but they're few and far between: Aragon, scion of an ancient line and an experienced adventurer, doesn't have one (until Narsil was reforged). Boromir, chief warlord of the most powerful kingdom of men, doesn't have one, nor indeed, does anyone else in the entire kingdom, that we know of. In stories like the Nibelungenlied, which is traditional myth, two magic swords pop up ... in the course of decades of strife between kingdoms and major noble houses . In Arthurian legend there is one - maybe two - magic swords, neither of which appear to be very powerful. Yet I'd call Arthurian myth pretty traditional. And so it goes.

 

One can certainly run games based traditional fantasy and myth without loads of magic gear. Indeed, that's pretty much the default setting, if one wants traditional, I would have thought. Certainly, my last three campaigns have all been pretty traditional fantasy, with lords and castles, monsters and evil wizards, and wide-ranging adventures by land, sea and air ... but not a lot of magic swords. It's certainly not a given in that sort of setting that any competent adventurer will have magic loot: in fact, in my game, magic loot is rare and valuable.

 

If not' date=' sure, anything goes. Some planetary romance backgrounds would actually give zap "sticks" and swords pretty equal importance. My point was just that the setting framework defines the ubiquity of statistical spread of magical items more than the rules, and given the symbolic importance of specifically swords amongst all weapons, I'd rate them pretty high regarding their frequency (within their power bracket).[/quote']

 

Of course setting defines frequency. That was my point. There's no need for a setting - especially traditional fantasy - to include masses of magic weaponry. But even if swords are "common" within their bracket, that doesn't mean that they are common. I gave away 3 or 4 magic swords, and only one magic spear and one magic knife over the course of the last three games, so you could say swords are more common ... but at an average of one sword every 3-4 years of play, not that they are common. Given that the PCs are supposed to be heroes, with (eventually anyway) a major effect on the local parts of the game world, that's more or less in line with trad. fantasy. The PCs have access to a magical sword - rather than every PC having a magic weapon. That's a very different dynamic.

 

Never mind that "magical" by itself doesn't say a lot per se. You could have a normal' date=' by the rules, no points necessary "magic sword" without any rules differences. Maybe it's just a bit more shiny, maybe not even that. It just needs a bit of "brand recognition". And on the other hand, you could have a mundane "elite" weapon, maybe made by the best smith or out of a special alloy, etc. Something that mechanically gives you a bonus. [/quote']

 

Sure, most "magic swords" from myth and legend actually fall into this category. Beowulf's sword Hrunting is described as "rare and ancient" and "wonderous" and the giver tells him that it had never failed in battle .... but when Beowulf uses it, it simply bluntens and notches on the troll's hide, so he throws it away.

 

In my experience' date=' players like both in equal measure. Getting better and showing that you've gotten better. (Not counting the systems where you really, really *need* them, because the whole leveling system is including their bonuses[/quote']

 

Oh, players like loot, no question: magic loot especially. But most games allow PCs to improve and progress without needing magic loot (D&D being an exception, of course, unless you significantly mod it)

 

So to get back to the topic a bit more, flavor set aside, it doesn't really matter that much whether added damage is coming from weapons or the abilities of the characters, if both are possible (which it is in HERO, not so much in D&D, f. ex.). Magical weapons raising damage caps does change that, of course.

 

So regarding magical weapons, right now it looks like I'd make the decision on a campaign by campaign basis. If I'm playing a setting with frequent magical weaponry, either the caps or magic raising caps would have to go, as it doesn't make much sense having both a rule and a very common way to circumvent it. If magic swords etc. are limited to epic heroes and in general the PCs aren't, then it might be something to strive for, of course.

 

Right: this is why I made the comment in the first place. If magic armour and weapons are commonplace enough that most PCs can reasonably expect to get them in a while, it will change more than just flavour - it will change the dynamics of the game, and that significantly. Raising the base damage by even a couple a DC, raises total damage output by 4DC, which basically renders mundane armour - to take one example - pretty close to useless. Unless you want a high body count, this means that players must have magical protection to remain viable in combat. If all the PCs have magical attacks and defences, then among humanoid foes, only who also have magical attacks and defences remain a credible threat.

 

Note, I should stress that I am not saying you shouldn't play like this: I've played plenty of games exactly like this. But it is a design decision which will echo through every adventure you run thereafter and shape the type of adventures you can run: you'll need extra-mundane opposition pretty much for every adventure.

 

this specific campaign' date=' I'm a bit on the fence. There's going to be a few high-PD/ED enemies around, and I'll have to consider whether I want the PCs to fight them using "normal" weapons (even if enchanted) or whether they'd have to get some special equipment for dealing with that (the equivalent of anti-vehicular weapons). I think I'll go with the latter, as this mostly would apply to creatures made out of solid steel and the like, regular weapons still fare pretty well against your run-of-the-mill 30 ft crocodile and similar fantasy critters and chimeras.[/quote']

 

And this is exactly what I mean. In a game without magical weaponry, a golem-type creature with 12 PD, that takes no STUN, is actually going to be a fearsome opponent. The players can eventually batter it into uselessness with axes and maces, but it'll take some time. Such a creature will be essentially immune to swords and arrows. Magic weapons with just a fairly minor boost means the same creature can be destroyed fairly easily. That's not a problem by itself: you can just make the creature a bit tougher ... except that now it's essentially immune to normal weapons.

 

These two decisions - how you will handle magic and how you will handle magic items - will influence every aspect of the game, and do more to affect its feel and how it actually plays than virtually any other decision you make. It's why it's worth thinking about the feel you want and how to handle those two things before almost anything else.

 

cheers, Mark

[mhd]

Re: Damage Limits

 

I was. Magic swords are only relatively common in traditional myth and fantasy' date=' if by "traditional" you mean "like D&D".[/quote']

I think we're talking about a different "relatively" here. I'm comparing them to magic items in general, not in items per capita. The fact that even mundane swords were rare and expensive makes them one of the first go-to items if you have magical equipment at all in a world, never mind their symbold character (strangely enough, magical scepters seem pretty rare).

Sure, their frequency is certainly increasing, from Excalibur, Nothung and Durendal to Bob the Fighter and his golfbag of monster-specific cutlery. By the way, I actually do "blame" Tolkien here. Glamdring, Sting, Orcrist, Narsil, the blades of the Nazgul and of course Checkovs "Hey, the wraiths left these for you" blades for the minor hobbits. These, plus Galadriel's plentiful gifts probably set the precedent for PCs with ample equipment. Throw in Stormbringer, Greyswandir, the Black Knight's Ebony Blade mix with lightsabres, add some Western capitalism, and you've got your "let's pick up the +1 swords to sell them in Homlet"…

 

I think the biggest support for this particular trope is the "need" for progress that's one of the common denominators of RPGs. Games where you have some kind of "Hero's Journey" or at least "getting better at killing things and taking their loot" vastly outnumber games where you basically remain at your starting stats (Traveller, a few superhero games, probably quite a few of those new-fangled "story" games…) Not exactly in balance to literary influences, I would say.

 

One thing we haven't mentioned yet is "weird stuff" magical items. This seems a more modern influence on RPGs, with all the crazy "wondrous items" and potions. I would say that more than with the arms & armor, players don't even care that much about the effiency of the descendants of Alice's cookies, Sinbad's lamp and Corum's eye/hand, but more about discovering those items as treasure, part of the exploratory nature of that type of RPGs. The only thing better than that is finding an exceedingly clever use for those items afterwards. And having a world where that seems common enough for semi-frequent discoveries seems to drag along magical weaponry, if the two categories aren't combined anyway (e.g. intelligent, talking swords).

 

So apart from combat effectiveness this is another important design decision: How weird do you want it to be? There's a wide variety even between semi-historical fantasy and Dying Earth/New Sun. And can you start out like that or do you "grow" into it. Cat people from the start, or Bob the cooper's apprentice discovering the Amulet of Aaahrn? Your relative tech-level is probably somewhat interconnected with this, especially if gunpowder and ornithopters are involved…

 

I, too, played a few of the different combinations of all those design factors. I didn't start out with D&D, but with a more mundane fantasy game, where wizards were pretty common, but magical artifacts weren't - and even those mainly had a few charges, no PC had anything that worked on a permanent basis. Then a few years of D&D, which both garnered praise for the above-mentioned possibilities of MacGyver-like item application and criticism for the item dependence, especially in the arms/armor/amulet sector.

 

But right now, I'm trying to introduce HERO with a conversion, so I'm actually working the other way 'round. I've got the magic, monster and item type/frequency somewhat set in the background, and it looks like there's plenty of everything. As well as some earlier guns. The trick now is balancing that SFX component with gameplay.

 

This thread has provided some very helpful insight. Due to the relatively high tech level for fantasy and wizardry being more on a craftsman level than "wise and powerful sage", I expect a lot of gadgetry, both mundane and magical. But I think it's better if I go word breadth than depth. If I can avoid it, no magical weaponry that is generally useful, like a sword that plainly adds (base) damage. Substituting physical for a certain type of energy damage seems a likely possbility, as well as things like armor piercing, probably limited against a specific type of protection. Weaponry that mostly works against a specific type of opponent, i.e. electrical pikes against metallical creations or bulky auto-winding crossbows against monstrosities from the blighted swamps. Magic weapons as a "sometimes food", which you use when needed, but against your city-based gangs and similar opponents, you're probably better off sticking to your normal weaponry. And with the relative easy of manufacturing magical might for those who need it also goes along the fact that these weapons and armor aren't that mythical and unbreakable - those types of weapons/armor will still be in the setting, but more in line with legends than the Forgotten Realms…

 

I think I'm sticking with the doubling rules for killing attacks as suggested, but let the full damage bonus apply for normal damage unarmed attacks…

[Christopher]

Re: Damage Limits

 

I think the biggest support for this particular trope is the "need" for progress that's one of the common denominators of RPGs. Games where you have some kind of "Hero's Journey" or at least "getting better at killing things and taking their loot" vastly outnumber games where you basically remain at your starting stats (Traveller' date=' a few superhero games, probably quite a few of those new-fangled "story" games…) Not exactly in balance to literary influences, I would say.[/quote']

I would say it matches a lot of literature:

Hero meets the big bad

Hero escapes big bad (but vows to beat him)

Hero get's better at fighting/better in line with hismelf to beat big bad.

Hero aquires better weapons/equipment to beat big bad.

Hero beats big bad.

 

Suprisingly the current Thundercats Series follows that strongly:

Lion-O has to find the Spirit Stones/improve hsi swordfighting/work at his character/get better with the sword of omens special powers.

Chiatara recently got a better staff.

Tigra got an upgraded whip.

Panthro got new arms.

The TigerTank was upgraded.

The only ones "unchanged" so far are the 2 kids.

 

But there are other examples:

Star Wars (Luke vs. Vader, copare teh three epsidoes)

The Dwarves (where the main Character makes a Skywalker journey - from Smith raised by humans to saving the world)

 

A little bit difference is how the Improvement of Skill works in books (at plotspeed) vs how it works in RPG's. In effect RPG's play the time between Epsiodes/books/chapters out in detail.

[Vondy]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Most of my heroic games weigh in at 8-9 DCs with 12-14 def, of which half is resistant. This is, of course, a general rule rather than an absolute one.

[mhd]

Re: Damage Limits

 

I would say it matches a lot of literature:

 

Sure, it does. Especially after Campbell's publication where lots of authors explicitly set out to pattern their story on those foundations, most famously George Lucas. But I would say it's not as universal as XPs in RPGs are. Even within a serial framework, a lot of characters start out as Big Dang Heroes, maybe get a few new scars, but have little to none character development in a major way (unless someone then writes "prequels", like the "Young Indy" series). Almost everything where the main character doesn't start as a brash youth. Does James Bond improve, or Sam Spade? Heck, is Captain America that much different from his WW 2 roots, regarding his skill set?

("Character" development is often something different. I don't need XPs to become more jaded or nice to cats.)

[Vondy]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Most of my heroic games weigh in at 8-9 DCs with 12-14 def' date=' of which half is resistant. This is, of course, a general rule rather than an absolute one.[/quote']

 

I should note that for many years I had a hard time setting the standard for heroic games and that this guideline was taken from Dark Champions: The Animated Series. It turns out it hits the sweet spot for my games.

[shincan]

Re: Damage Limits

 

That's one of the things I really like about FH--there are many ways to easily represent magic weapons in the system. You can increase the damage' date=' obviously, or give it +1 OCV. Or you can reduce the STR min. Or give it AP, or penetrating, or +10 STUNx, or +levels to Sweep, or range bonuses, and so on. And these are all for "generic", somewhat-superior-to-ordinary, magic weapons.[/quote']

 

nicely stated. and super true.

[bluesguy]

Re: Damage Limits

 

This is an interesting thread, especially how it morphed into a discussion about magic weapons and armor.

 

I am currently running a campaign based on the Valdorian Age and if there are any magic weapons or armor they will 'purpose built' to fit the story. Once used they will not longer have any value towards the campaign. For instance if the story is going to have the players deal with a legendary monster they will 'hear' about the 'only way to kill' said monster is with a particular weapon or magic or whatever. But after they defeat the monster the weapon or magic item is basically useless because it only had one purpose. This fits the legendary model of 'magic' that I want to run in my campaign.

 

As for damage class and CSL, the players have already gotten pretty much as good as they are going to get. They run into a lot of 'minions' (OCV 4-5; DCV 5 and maybe +1 or +2 in CSL & shield), wearing 3 or 4 PD/ED armor using 1d6+1 or 1 1/2d6 weapons. The players on the other hand range in OCV from 5 to 6; DCV 5 to 6 + some have shields; +4 to 6 CSL; up to +3 PSL; wear 6 PD/ED armor ("magic" leather armor made from carrion crawler skin that they killed); using 1 1/2d6 to 3d6 weapons (when strength is included). Pretty much the characters move through minions like Conan would. And that is exactly what I wanted in the campaign. I am enforcing the 2x DC rule for now.

 

I have also capped OCV/DCV to either 5/5 or 7/7 depending on the style of fighter and limited the strength of the characters depending on the style of fighter (tanks have +18; fencer/speedsters are ~13/15). What I have encouraged is learning a martial art that goes with your character's fighting style.

 

This has played out well. When they run into opposition that is 'weaker' in one-on-one combat situations they slice through individuals like a hot knife through butter. When they run into a large number of 'weaker' opponents they get creative or use maneuvers that might be dangerous against someone as skilled as they are but are very cinematic - big time sweeps; picking up an opponent and throwing them at a bunch that is getting ready to charge; archers who take head shots to drop opponents with one shot; speedsters who disarms a few and then gives them a 'prick' to suggest they run away. So the five characters have had encounters with 20 or 30 minion bandits at a time and it was pretty much the way you would expect an encounter like that between Conan or Fafred/Gray Mouser to go - bandits were mincemeat.

 

When they have run into opponents who are their equals they start to get nervous and play more defensively. They look for ways to minimize their opponents strengths. The last time that happened they were happy that everyone decided to run away from each other. The players seriously wounded the bad guys and the bad guys seriously wounded a few PCs. The PC (and players) went home licked their wounds (and pride) and started thinking about 'how are we going to deal with those guys?'

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Erm, no, I was just talking about the meaning (or lack thereof) of "points" in a setting.

 

Ok, thanks for the explaination.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Oh and same game for in-game bonus, my brother (who never played Hero before), decided to chrage the Hobgblin whose sitting on his throne, I decided that the hobgoblin was so shocked that he was 1/2 DCV and didn't block the attack.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Damage Limits

 

Per RAW only the STR is Base Damage.

I never count Haymaker as it has serious penalties. It's the "kill someone in his Sleep", "Coup de grace" or "Sniper" maneuver for me. Especially I never count it in Combination with MA, as it can't combine with Martial Arts (the ineffectiveness of non-martial Maneuvers is another balancing factor for Martial Arts).

 

Agreed. Haymaker as its own maneuver cannot be combined with Martial Arts or any other maneuver. However, I count it as Base Damage (when combined with Raw STR Damage...it does not count as Base damage when used with melee weaponry) so that it's effectiveness as a Big Finishing Move is not reduced, which it is if you utilize the STR = Base Damage equation. A character of normal STR (10) does not get the full benefit from Haymaker (or Offensive Strike, or Sacrifice Strike etc) thus making the maneuver a highly unattractive option for most characters. Allowing Haymaker and Martial Arts maneuvers to be utilized as Base Damage when used unarmed gives weaker characters some more wiggle room when calculating their damage limits. STR 10 guy maximum damage is 4D6 unarmed no matter what isn't very fun for STR 10 guy and discourages people from making STR 10 guy even when it makes sense for their character to have STR 10.

 

In addition to this, STR as Base Damage makes it difficult to simulate the aged master who still kicks arse. Sure, you can purchase his martial arts moves as powers to increase the base, or purchase Hand Attack to increase the base (probably my solution if I were playing in a group that used the damage limit). However without those solutions, the character would be incredibly limited in the damage he/she could cause even though his skill level says otherwise. I highly doubt if Mr. Miyagi could lift more than 220lbs at his age, however I'm sure his Crane Kick would do far more than a mere 4D6N damage.