Snarf

Geez, what a controversial power. It sounds like the problem is that the effectiveness of damage shield varies widely for different campaigns and different players. If that's the trouble, then everyone should set their own price for it based on their own playtesting. If a player buys it and it turns out less or more effective than it should, you could adjust the price and allow the player to remake the character partially between games.

The thing with no range was sort of a one size fits all compromise solution, intended to solve Agent X's problem of players feeling better about the cost. Is damage shield really twice as effective as the plain old energy blast? Depends on the game I guess. If a PC bought the ability, I feel the GM should make an effort to create enough diversity in villians where it will have some effect most of the time. The +1/2 to +1 1/2 method sounds good to me. It's more precise, gets rid of questionable required limitations, and should work better for an experienced GM. Burnination Blast: EB 12d6 (AP 60) (RC 60) Burnination Field: EB 6d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2) (AP 60) (RC 60) Blindination Field: Sight Group Flash 4d6, Damage Shield (+1 1/2), 0 END (+1/2), (AP 60) (RC 60) To me, this looks like the best idea so far. If you're really having a problem with defenses, you can get the EB shield up to 8d6 by dropping the 0 END, and still be under the AP cap.

Damage shield isn't entirely defensive, if you're capable of holding your opponent in a grab. I don't think you should compare a 12d6 energy blast to a 4d6 damage shield. They are supposed to be balanced based on real cost, not active points. Compare a 4d6 (or 3d6 if you don't agree with the proposed house rule) damage shield to an 8d6 energy blast. If the only problem is a campaign with consistently strong defenses, then ask the GM to relax the AP limit enough to allow something like this: Burnination Field: EB 8d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 100); No Range (-1/2), (RC 67) In a game like that, I don't think it would be unbalanced. As for all these evil combinations with other powers, maybe increase the cost of damage shield from +1/2 to +1 or more if something weird is going on.

Well, as previously mentioned, it's more of a specialty defense designed to take out people with lower than usual defense that defend themselves by not getting hit.

I forgot to use 0 END. The average defense is still a mystery since the game isn't fully ready yet... Burnination Blast: EB 8d6 (AP 40) (RC 40) Burnination Field: EB 4d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2) (AP 60); No Range (-1/2), (RC 40)

I like the sound of that. I'll try it out in my games. Burnination Blast: EB 7d6 (AP 35) (RC 35) Burnination Field: EB 4d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 50); No Range (-1/2), (RC 33)

That's a good point. As usual, the GM just has to use his judgement as to whether a player is being cheesy, while keeping in mind all the other meta-rules, such as the one where you should choose the power and advantages that best represent the special effects of the ability you want. I would probably allow the darkness method in my games, if the player wanted it. I don't think I would allow the no range limitation on it though, because the (-0) gunshots only thing seems to cover the value of that. I think all the advantages and disadvantages of that mod cancel out, when considering how darkness normally works. Silencer: +1/4 IPE: Hearing for up to 3d6 RKA (AP 11); OAF (-1), (RC 6) Silencer: Darkness to Hearing, 0 END (+1/2), Only affects gunshots(+0) (AP 7); OAF (-1), (RC 3) Silencer: Darkness to Hearing and Sight, 0 END (+1/2), Only affects gunshots (+0), (AP 23); OAF (-1), (RC 13) Darkness to sight is a little odd though, because I think it implies that dark spot appears to cover up the muzzle flash.

If it's only invisible to hearing that's a +1/4 advantage and will probably fit under the VPP cap easily. The only problem with the darkness method is the meta-rule that says that if there are two ways to do something, you should use the more expensive way. The darkness thing would be about 2 points but the IPE advantage would be about 10, even with hearing only. It all depends on what the GM allows.

Transform: incomprehensible words into understandable ones =P

+1 1/2 is is steep, but you do get a lot. It's basically a free attack without even having to roll to hit. You can even actively use it, if you're capable of holding your enemy in a grab or pay the additional +1/4 to have it add to your HTH attacks. Still, I would probably never buy it, so I think you're certainly on to something. Maybe comprising with a +1 cost for damage shield and no requirement of continuous would ease the burning guilt.

Since you're working around a VPP, the naked power advantage for all your guns seems most convenient. Silencer: Invisible Power Effect for up to RKA 3d6 (Sight and Sound, +3/4) (AP 34); OAF (-1) (RC 16) This silencer would be cinematically powerful. Realistically, there should be a little bit of sight and sound despite the silencer, but with this power it's so slight as to be literally imperceptible. Also, a realistic silencer would wear out after a few shots. Or you could just increase your VPP until adding some advantages isn't ever a problem. When you don't need silencing, give the guns armor piercing or extra damage instead.

It's not that I thought it was necessarily underpriced, I assumed it was probably at the right price but I was misunderstanding something. I figured (correctly) that the fastest way to figure it out was post a question on the forum.

How much did damage shield cost in 4'th Edition?

If the GM wants to disciourage/balance flying a little, Clinging could be used as a guidline for a power that allows you to ignore terrain problems and such. The first level of flying could be 10 points and this would give you 0" of flight, in other words hovering or drifting, then you can start buying up the move rate for 2 points per inch.

That's a good point. You would be getting some pretty massive boosts and they could last a long time if the other character enhanced the duration. It would be pretty rare for an actual doubling of effect to occur though, so it might be better to buy it up to 100 active points or so, if the GM allows, or lower the limitation value of doubling as the maximum effect. My last thought is that the way the trigger advantage is defined seems like more of a disadvantage. Normally you could use a power like succor to help anyone, but this one will end up only benefitting yourself. So, I'd suggest adding another disadvantage such as Self Only (-1/2) to reflect this, even though you're technically aiding someone else. Soo, here's my final idea: Amethyst Boost: Aid Aid 6d6 (Succor), Trigger: Someone is using Aid on me (+1/2), Ranged (+1/2) (AP 60); 1 Segment Only (-1/4), Limited: Cannot do more than double target's Aid (-1/4), Self Only (-1/2) (RC 30) or: Amethyst Boost: Aid Aid 12d6 (Succor), Trigger: Someone is using Aid on me (+1/2), Ranged (+1/2) (AP 120); 1 Segment Only (-1/4), Cannot do more than double target's Aid (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2) (RC 53) Note that either of these will cost you endurance and you aid buddy will need to use additional endurance for his enhanced power. Edit: I just noticed that a stone is where Amethyst's powers come from. Throw a focus limitation on it and even that high powered form is pretty cheap.

The problem is Aid is an expensive power and since you're succoring someone else, you have to go through two aids before you finally get your boost. It might be more efficient to buy ordinary self-aid, enhance it so it can aid anything, then limit it so it can only copy what someone is doing to you.

Oops, I just editted my original post to fix the trigger cost. It wouldn't necessarily have to happen imperceptibly. Maybe the character could glow purple or something as it's happening. That would save some points.

Amethyst Boost: Aid Aid 6d6 (Succor), Trigger: Someone is using Aid on me (+1/4), Ranged (+1/2) (AP 52); 1 Segment Only (-1/4), Cannot do more than double target's Aid (-1/2) (RC 30) Succor looks like a good non-VPP way to do it. It's kind of expensive, but if you consider the vulnerabilty, which is around 20 points I guess, the net cost is 10.

I'm just saying it sounds a little like double dipping. A STR of 0 already makes you helpless and infirm. I would either get the low stat or the limitation but not both. It sounded to me like leaving the vehicle doesn't take away the strength, so to speak, but entering it gives him strength. I could be missing the point here, but a disadvantage seems redundant. This could be a good topic to debate. Is there such a thing as a redundant disadvantage?

If you want to have him be able to just "hold a charge", i.e. have the effects of an adjustment power last longer, you could buy delayed return rate as a naked power advantage that is always on and usable by others, plus whatever other advantages are required to make it work. This only works if you consider the ability to be an advantage overall. Also, the limitation value of always on should probably be increased since it would now indicate a significant combat vulnerability. Edit: Come to think of it, No Conscious Control might be more appropriate than Always On with this construction. It doesn't work precisely how any of these advantages are written, but No Conscious Control might be a better guideline for how valuble an ability controlled entirely by what other people do is worth.

Do your players know much about Hero System? Since you're not decided anyway, you might just want to ask them what they like to use. If cost and combat convenience are most important, multipowers seem the best to me.

I agree with Maccabe, A VPP should be avoided when it's unecessary. You just have to build an EC (or multipower) with all the powers the player wants, then limit the base cost and all the powers so they can only be used in the presence of fire. Elemental Control: Fire Powers (AP 25); Will only work around fire (-1/4) (RC 20) Flame Jet: EB 5d6, Continuous (+1) [since he seems to be able to keep things burning] (AP 50) (EC Bonus 25) (Remaining Cost 25) (RC 20) Wall of Fire: EB 4d6, Continuous (+1), Area of Effect: Line (+1) (AP 60) (EC Bonus 25) (Remaining Cost 35) (RC 28) and so on. I think the elemental control is good because it makes sense that all the powers are drained together.

Points can already be gotten just by lowering his strength and constitution and such. Only if he was legless or something would you absolutely need to use a physical limitation.

They should've done product placement on the pants. Levis Mega Stretch! One size fits all! What's the best way to simulate more anger making someone more powerful? Absorbtion to fuel growth? Different levels of accidental transform?

If your using magic smoke bombs you could probably also use focus if you wanted. You could also get set effect if it can only make self duplicates. Don't forget to buy the user's INT good and high, since an INT roll is required to precisely copy something. That must be the cheapest way to do it, as long as the GM approves the megascaling.