|
Post by CRTaylor on Apr 18, 2014 14:28:50 GMT
OK For a while now I've thought that the Hero Toolkit has a blank spot on the pegboard, so to speak. Several games have the concept of the "skill tree" or "talent tree" which allows you to buy abilities and powers that build on each other. You cannot buy something further down the tree unless you buy the earlier ability. Further, the tree separates abilities into different branches, so you can have a "fire" branch and a "cold" branch, which you have to build separately.
This was sort of touched on in the 4th edition Fantasy Hero spell system, which had a limitation that was applied to powers if you had to buy precursors (say, at least 10 points of Ice Magic to buy this spell). However, the concept was dropped in 5th edition, since by the time you can buy the power, its not a limitation any more, so it doesn't limit the power.
That said, it is a bit of a limitation to not be able to buy certain abilities, and while you can simply call that a campaign feature, this system is common enough in games that I think it would benefit from a Hero Power Framework structure to make building this concept easier.
So here's the challenge: how would you do this? What structure or system would work best to simulate powers you cannot buy unless you get the precursors?
|
|
|
Post by CRTaylor on Apr 18, 2014 15:50:02 GMT
I pondered this a while personally and it seems like some kind of structure that reduces cost of powers bought further down the chain by each step that is required (so x points off if its 1 step from the bottom, x more if its 2 steps, etc).
The concern is that this is again limiting a power in a way that doesn't actually limit it. Except in Hero terms, buying abilities is done with points, and the point cost seems like it ought to be lower if you can't get it without buying something else.
|
|
kravenkor
Double Digit Master
"We're making a better world; all of them. Better worlds."
Posts: 92
|
Post by kravenkor on Apr 18, 2014 16:51:11 GMT
I pondered this a while personally and it seems like some kind of structure that reduces cost of powers bought further down the chain by each step that is required (so x points off if its 1 step from the bottom, x more if its 2 steps, etc). The concern is that this is again limiting a power in a way that doesn't actually limit it. Except in Hero terms, buying abilities is done with points, and the point cost seems like it ought to be lower if you can't get it without buying something else. Depends on how you look at it. You can do what the OP says 100% within HERO terms and not even have cost affected by the requirements, and just call it "the way you are doing things for this campaign." You can use HERO and create "classes" or "archetypes" that can only progress along set lines, without any need to address that limitation so far as power limitations or character complications. I would do it 100% as Templates and campaign-specific text, and no changes to core HERO rules, per se.
|
|
gojira
Double Digit Master
in a rubber monster suit.
Posts: 85
|
Post by gojira on Apr 18, 2014 17:16:11 GMT
A -0 Limitation would work here. It's a campaign convention that you can't do it, but since it doesn't actually limit the power (enough) then it's not worth any points.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Goodwin on Apr 18, 2014 17:32:43 GMT
I liked the 4th edition Fantasy Hero bit. I recognize that it had flaws in the implementation, but I think those flaws are fixable. Mainly, the spells weren't designed to take advantage of it properly; there should have been "base spells" with no requirements, next level spells with 10 points in requirements, more advanced with 20 points, and so on. I also don't think it had to be a limitation on buying the spells as much as a Limitation on using them; maybe you've learned Ignite Fire (1 pip RKA) and Shape Fire (Cosmetic Transform 1d6, Fire to Fire), and maybe you've bought the Arcane Flame Blast (2d6 RKA, Explosion; Requires 10 Points In Fire Spells) but can't actually cast it until you've learned some other prerequisites.
I can see the rationale for going the 5e way. It's the GM's job to decide what powers the characters can buy, and how and when. I like the stepped buying method, though, and wanted to see it developed more.
|
|
gojira
Double Digit Master
in a rubber monster suit.
Posts: 85
|
Post by gojira on Apr 18, 2014 17:45:01 GMT
I can see the rationale for going the 5e way. It's the GM's job to decide what powers the characters can buy, and how and when. My counter argument to this is that the result is a very, very vanilla rule set. It's better to add some flavor to the base rules and then say "the GM can change the flavor if he or she wishes." It's better to give a player something that's more useful and interesting out of the box than it is to say "you have to build the interesting stuff yourself."
|
|
|
Post by CRTaylor on Apr 19, 2014 5:38:35 GMT
Using the Fantasy Hero System has its attractions, I agree. You'd have to come up with a way to price the limitations based on the relative power level of points spent. In a low power game, 10 points is quite a bit, but in a big time game its nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Thia Halmades on Apr 20, 2014 20:36:07 GMT
For the record, I would not do this. Not because a system like this doesn't have a place, but for it to really work in HERO it has to be built out very specifically in advance, and while a generic framework could be devised, it's far too liquid for it to have any kind of long term application (again, IMO/YMMV). From the perspective of the system, the "problem" is that the easiest way to do is by turning the system upside down. Instead of contemplating them as Limitations as we would traditionally, the simplest way is to allow the application of a new Limitation on a going forward basis, which for sake of example I'll call "Rank."
Cold I: 45 AP Cap. Cost applied normally. Cold II: 60 AP Cap. If n. number/amount of Cold I is purchased, Cold II powers gain the Limitation, "Rank I, -1/4." Cold III: 75 AP Cap. If n. number/amount of Cold n. is purchased, Cold III powers gain the Limitation, "Rank n. -1/2."
And so on. Now, you build your powers normally (as they should be) and the cost is reduced by the GM as appropriate based on the campaign structure and what have you. This violates a canon rule: A Limitation cannot convey an Advantage," but from poetic license, it's a rule I would break to achieve the effect in question.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Goodwin on Apr 21, 2014 2:24:26 GMT
For the record, I would not do this. Not because a system like this doesn't have a place, but for it to really work in HERO it has to be built out very specifically in advance, and while a generic framework could be devised, it's far too liquid for it to have any kind of long term application (again, IMO/YMMV). From the perspective of the system, the "problem" is that the easiest way to do is by turning the system upside down. Instead of contemplating them as Limitations as we would traditionally, the simplest way is to allow the application of a new Limitation on a going forward basis, which for sake of example I'll call "Rank." I used to call that "Special GM's Bonus". Now I'd call it something like "GM's Incentive".
|
|
|
Post by CRTaylor on Apr 21, 2014 5:04:13 GMT
That's probably the easiest way to do it, although it looks an awful lot like a power framework when in place.
Assigning a -1/4 per rank base modifier with some rules and options for adjusting that based on the size of the steps and such (sort of like how side effects are treated) would probably work. Because you buy things with points in Hero, having to buy something in order to buy something else is actually a limitation, it just doesn't feel that way when its all bought. Its like rare cards in a collectable card game: they are usually more powerful, but once you have them they aren't rare any more... just powerful.
|
|
|
Post by Thia Halmades on Apr 21, 2014 23:39:48 GMT
But HERO doesn't innately support the design, given that everything is point buy, and you want it to cost less, that's the only way I can do it without a kludge of some kind. The other option is to assign a flat "cost reduction" of 5, 10, 15 points, etc, like an upside down adder.
|
|
|
Post by CRTaylor on Apr 22, 2014 0:11:14 GMT
Well that's why I brought up the power framework idea. You know, so Hero WOULD Have a method of handling just such a design.
|
|
|
Post by Thia Halmades on Apr 22, 2014 0:26:34 GMT
That's where we disagree, I don't think a framework will do it. It's a rules set function, at best.
|
|
|
Post by CRTaylor on Apr 24, 2014 13:42:53 GMT
Well see, that's just it I'm not understanding WHY you are rejecting the very concept of a framework and say Hero can't do this.
|
|
gojira
Double Digit Master
in a rubber monster suit.
Posts: 85
|
Post by gojira on Apr 24, 2014 17:01:16 GMT
And this is why I prefer a -0 limitation and GM fiat. Hero, being a point-buy system, doesn't really work for things that need to be part of a campaign or game world, but aren't worth points in the game's mechanics.
It's like Flight in a "normal people" campaign. You can't buy Flight if you're largely just a normal person. And that's not worth any points. (I don't like NCM as a Disadvantage/Complication, but that's a long argument.)
If you want to play a normal person, or play in a game that's about normal people, not being able to fly is just something you accept, and move on. You don't have to build that with points. The idea that every little concept or idea must some how be built with points is relatively recent to Hero, and kind of gross imo.
If you want to play in a game with spell levels, just say "you have to buy your spells this way" and be done with it. It's a common feature for all characters in that game, so why make special point builds for it? The whole concept of trying "build" this is rather counter-intuitive to me.
|
|