Hugh Neilson

I think this is also partly an outgrowth of moving from "game" to "system". How valuable is such an ability in an espionage game? Wouldn't it be nice if the scruffy fantasy game adventurer could instantly have clothing appropriate for the Royal Court, fit in with the townsfolk or duck around a corner and suddenly be dressed like the city watch? This seems like the type of ability best suited to be a Talent in a specific genre. That is likely the way to handle many genre tropes.

That's basically the current model, IMO. Re-use times provide some in-combat utility, but after that, you are waiting a long time, or spending a lot to decrease the re-use time. There are optional rules like tracking wounds, but there are lots of optional rules that rarely see use in Hero. One very easy fix to out of combat healing would be a "cinematic healing" genre rule for specific campaigns. Some published characters have "cinematic healing" powers of slow regeneration so BOD recovers outside combat much faster that 1 REC/month. If it were, say, REC/day for this campaign, BOD damage would still be serious in combat, but a bit of down time, rather than a lengthy hospital stay, would deal with it. BTW, my "1d6 Aid" example was a speedster with a heightened metabolism whose Aid was on "all characteristics below starting levels". The problems weren't realized until they became evident in play - such as "-45 STUN" for a 6 SPD character recovering 1d6/phase (21 STUN per turn) isn't very "a long time" any more.

Unlimited healing is a major change to the dynamic in games where BOD damage is relevant. BOD damage is pretty rare in most Supers games, but unlimited healing in a Fantasy or Sci-Fi game game tends to be more of an issue. When all you need is 1d6 BOD healing, Extra Time - 1 turn to have the whole team hale and hearty 5 minutes after any battle, BOD damage becomes a lot less problematic.

As a point of order, it makes the defender substantially weaker. Nothing prevents PCs being the attacker, and the opponents being easily cowed into submission by their PRE attacks/controlled by their mental attacks. The only drawbacks I can foresee in rolling defenses if the balance can be set comparable to the current model (so attacks are neither more nor less likely to succeed) is more time due to more die rolls, so a slower game and increased volatility which may be a flaw or a feature depending on your preferences.

4e Healing Aid was a problem. Consider 1d6 Aid, 0 END, Healing Only, Persistent. Now put it on STUN and END. Every phase, the character recovers 1d6 STUN and 2d6 END . For a 5 SPD Super, that's 17.5 STUN and 35 END back a turn. Why buy REC at all? Having all Aid also Heal made STUN and END Aid extremely powerful overall. Aid costing 0 END was an outlier for attack powers - that was one key reason for restoring the END cost in 6e. 10/1.5 for Costs END was 6.67 points per die anyway, so 6 points was not much change there.

I like this idea - the NPC's fixed amount can be set at appropriate levels to make a success or failure similarly likely to the current model (or varied to taste, depending on whether there is a desire to vary the odds of success), the same number of rolls are required so combat speed should not be changed, and some work shifts from the GM (already doing multiple things at a time) to the players (with the added bonus that it's tougher to tune out between their PC's actions).

First off, +1 to "all skills" is deceptive. You don't get "all skills", you get "any one skill at a time". The actual stat is far better for complementary skills, as well as giving you all the other advantages of those characteristics. On INT, I would make +1 to all PER a 5 point investment and downgrade for only limited sense groups. That's about the only item that needs to change. If you only want the skill rolls, you buy +8 INT, no PER adders and +8 PRE no PRE attacks. Try building that skillmonger as only highly trained - average INT or PRE and he had to work to get good at those skills. Either skill levels should be cheaper (and so should PRE attack bonuses) or the characteristics should be priced higher. Buying all the benefits of higher characteristics individually should not be markedly more expensive than buying up the characteristics.

There's two questions here. One is static versus variable defenses. You have reasons that you want variable defenses. The other is whether it makes the defender weaker. Using your examples: Under the static defense rules, Bill has 25 defenses. Under your model, he has 5d6 which averages 17.5. He needs to roll an average of 5 to be at the defense level he has under the static model. Your model makes defenses less potent. Bill needs 7d6 to average 24.5, getting close to his old static 25 defenses. Cap now has an average of 29 points to defend. He had 35 static defenses. He needs about 2d6 more to get back to where he was.

If you have 10d6 Mind Control, your average roll would be 35. That would be +25 versus a 10 EGO, or +5 versus 20 EGO and 10 Mental Defense. That suggests that 1 EGO or mental defense should average 1 "defense". 3 is Standard Effect for 1d6, so you could just divide the total by 3 and roll that many d6. Once we start rolling defenses, though, as LoneWolf notes, the game slows down. That could be mitigated by providing that both attack and defense are (say) 3d6 + "stat minus 10" (or just 3d6 + Stat - everyone is getting an extra 10 points for free) so 15d6 Mind Control is 3d6 + 36 (standard effect on 12 dice) against 20 EGO and 10 Mental Defense is 3d6 + 20 (standard effect for the first 20 of 30 resistance). Results also become more volatile as a high or low roll on defenses is as possible as a high or low roll for attack. Limiting the dice would mitigate that as well. What change in the mechanics or feel are you trying to achieve? With no objective in mind, this feels like a solution in search of a problem.

PRE was the starting point. Greater of EGO and PRE was a rule/optional rule in some editions. I got to thinking about characteristics in the shift from 5e to 6e. DEX went from 3 points to 2 points, but that's what it cost when it provided OCV and DCV - all we did was remove SPD. My first thought was that it was overpriced, but really it's other characteristics that are underpriced. DEX, INT and PRE provide skill rolls and some other benefit (initiative, PER and PRE attacks, respectively). Make them 2 points each, and a -1 limitation means +1 to all skill rolls based on this stat (likely "and base Char rolls) costs 5 points. Reduce if you can't apply that to more than one roll at a time (no complimentary skill based on the same stat) or if it only applies to a subset of such rolls. That also allows +5 Initiative, +1 to PER rolls and +1d6 PRE attacks to cost 5 points, again reduced if it's limited. But that leaves PRE Defense out. So make EGO, at 1 point per +1 EGO, half about PRE defense and half about mental strength (EGO rolls and defense against mental powers). PRE is currently 1 point and should be 2 based on the cost of increasing its components (most notably skill rolls). I'd keep EGO at 1 per because there are less EGO rolls (no skills) and PRE defense should be cheaper than PRE attacks, similar to other defenses. In a game based mainly on mental powers, I would consider boosting the cost of EGO. It is the equivalent of limited Mental Defense in defending against most mental powers, so if those are more common, a higher cost is reasonable.

There should be three dots at the top right of your post. Click that and Edit should be one of your choices. Most of this just reworks the math into a different form, so no big deal. You do need something to replace rolling half or under the target number, if you want to retain any of those rules. Doubling the DC isn't a practical alternative, I suspect. Maybe a flat amount that the roll succeeds by? Make the roll by 10? That would allow an unskilled (-3 penalty) roll to achieve such a success on only a routine task. As for PRE defense, I prefer EGO as the sole defense. There is no reason for an impressive person to not be easily impressed themselves, where a strong, disciplined mind seems more likely to see past the flash to the objective reality.

HA did not exist in early Champions editions. It grew out of normal damage weapons in Fantasy. It is also easily resolved as limited STR (only to do HTH damage) which also opens the door to "only adds to combat effects" (i.e. a character who punches and shoves harder, holds better in a grapple, disarms more effectively but does not lift heavy objects). "But it goes vs ED". So what? AVAD from PD to ED is a +0 advantage. I can imagine added DCs from STR being part of the build of the sword rather than being automatic due to the nature of HKA. +X DCs, only +1 DC per 5 STR of the wielder in excess of the STR minimum. Another messy element for real weapon builds, but so what? They are already very messy. Voila - Kilmore does more damage than Meeka. Neither has to pay points for the sword anyway. Shouldn't Kilmore do more damage with a knife than his 13 STR rogue comrade? It's not 2 DCs equivalent. Kilmore's +15 STR does not just enhance his KA damage by another 3 DCs. It also provides numerous other benefits. Why can't Meeka cast a stronger Magic Missile or Fireball due to her high INT?

I'm not suggesting HKA should cost more, I am suggesting that having a high STR should not grant a discount. If you buy a 60 STR and no HKA, you don't get any HKA dice. If you leave STR at 10 and spend 50 on HKA, you get 4d6 HKA and a 10 STR. If you instead spend 20 on STR and 30 on HKA, you get the same 4d6 HKA and the added benefits of a 30 STR instead of a 10 STR. How many characters from 2e to 5e did you see achieve a 4d6 HKA any other way? If they want 0, they can sell back any or all characteristics. It's not free - you chose to keep 10 STR rather than sell it back. There's the gamer mindset that a +1 bonus is meh but a -1 penalty is the end of the world, but that's the only impediment to a Blaster with 5 STR and +1d6 Blast. STR is not HKA either. That's the point. The argument for STR adding to HKA has always been "but logically higher STR should make the sword strike/claws/radioactive fingernails hit harder". True. And logically being super-stretchy should protect you from blunt attacks, being resistant to radiation should defend against radiation attacks and being immune to extreme heat and cold should protect you from attacks based on extremes of heat or cold. But only in the case of STR adding to HKA do we acquiesce and say "OK, you can have extra HKA for free since you bought STR just like the Brick with no HKA did". For all the other "but logically" arguments, we answer that "logically, your chartacter should pay the character points and buy those defenses".

That's game logic. "You don't automatically get more effect from one ability because you bought a different ability" is solid game logic. It would suggest more HKA costs more points. The same logic that suggests a stronger swordsman would do more damage with his sword also suggests that a person immune to the effects of high heat would be more resistant to an attack relying on high heat to inflict damage. Of course, those 2 points for resistance to heat would provide no defense against cold, electricity, etc. so it's not unlimited. V2 100 discusses the issue only in the context of a maneuver (like a Martial Strike) used with a killing attack to state that you add STR once to the overall result, not twice. It does not preclude using the STR for some other purpose at the same time. That might include a sword strike plus a STR strike, or a rapier and a dagger. Either one could be made as part of a combined attack, provided the rules for a combined attack are followed. My reference to v2 p 74 is to "Combined Attack", not to Nighthawk. Nighthawk is forced to make multiple attacks - a combined attack can only have one target. Multiple uses of STR to attack always costs END multiple times, so that's not in question. That's no different than using your Blast and your Drain as a combined attack - both still cost END. That swordsman is already using his STR to haul his armour and other gear, as well as to meet the STR min for his shield, before he uses it to strike with his sword.

So if my character were immune to the vacuum and need not breathe, in your game he can survive in the close to absolute zero temperature in space? Regardless, the point stands - it is not logical that a character immune to radiation takes damage from a radiation blast; one immune to high heat still takes the effect of a Heat Blast; and so on. That character has justification for purchasing defenses against such attacks but they must still be purchased. Your HKA is enhanced by your high STR? Then pay the points. 6e V2p74 lists an HKA and a HA as an example of a multiple power attack. Seems like I am using my STR twice there. Using two or more powers or similar abilities once against a single target is a combined attack. STR Strike + HKA. V2 p 100 goes to great length to note that, when adding STR to an HKA made with a maneuver that would also normally add STR damage, the STR does not add to the HKA twice. If using the STR once locked it out from all other uses, that discussion would be unnecessary. V1 p 41 discusses multiple uses of STR in the same phase, including spending END for each attack when multiple STR-based attacks are made in the same phase. Using it with the HKA does not mean that it can be used for nothing else in the same phase.

But being able to survive in the depths of space while still being damaged by a freon blast makes logical sense? The shift for "pay with money" weapons, to me, would be an extension of STR Min. 8 STR Min, +X DC only if STR exceeds STR Min by 5 per added DC. For a point-based Super, a similar limitation could be taken, but for virtually all point-based Super, it will be a pretty minor limitation as they tend to buy enough STR to maximize the added damage on their KA. A simple -1/4 similar to Unified Power would do the trick. Even if the HKA drain doesn't affect STR, how often do we see Drains that affect the typical use of Unified Power to simulate an EC? STR drains are more common. I am surprised how seldom someone realizes that you can do a 2d6 KA + 2d6 for 30 STR and just toss in a 6d6 Strike with your STR as a Combined Attack. Maybe that -1/4 limitation should be Lockout on the STR used to enhance the HKA. First off, it's only a straw man if I am clear I am not proposing STR not add to HA. I'm not, to be clear. [Well, perhaps I am but not in a manner that impacts the result.] I'd like to see HA largely reworked, starting with a philosophical shift that it is not a Blast that STR enhances, but a form of limited STR. STR that only enhances combat effects of any HTH maneuver (much like an MA DC) as a -1/4 limitation seems reasonable*. At -1/2, it affects only one combat effect (most commonly normal damage, bringing us back to the classic Hand Attack). A further -1/4 limits it to only Martial maneuvers (only non-martial should be worth more to a martial artist and nothing to someone lacking martial arts). [So I guess I am proposing that HA enhance STR, and STR not enhance HA, if we're technical about it.] * As I consider it, that's not far off slapping Beam onto a ranged attack and losing the ability to Spread or limit the damage. As for STR Adds to Ranged Attacks, I think it is a bad idea to allow one ability to enhance a second ability. Just buy more of the enhanced ability, linking it to the first as you see fit. Over six editions, we've evolved to the point where virtually every Super has resistant defenses, or some other means of neutralizing KA BOD damage. The problem with the KA in Supers games was the STUN volatility. An average 14 BOD was easy to deal with. 4d6 averaging 14 but doing 70 STUN one time in 6? Not so much. The defenses needed to mitigate high STUN multiples would render normal attacks of comparable DCs irrelevant. This was even published a few times. In the Deathstroke scenario, a couple of the villains were noted as not using their KAs against "soft targets", but using them if it was the only way to lay some serious STUN damage down on a target. The Ultimate Super Mage noted that, in a "no limits; make the most unbalanced 12 DC attack you can" game, it was the 4d6 KA that most often disrupted the game, by STUNning or One Shotting an otherwise powerful opponent with a high stun multiple. Then we got 1d6 KAs with +3 Advantages in Increased STUN Multiple, to move the volatility to the initial damage roll. Dealing with "non-bulletproof supers" seems like a challenge every Super game has to address. The old MSH game just ignored differences between lethality of attacks (other than Ranged Attacks being capable of an instant kill!). The Mayfair DC game required a declaration that one was shifting to lethal combat. A designer's note indicated that it initially felt "wrong" that firearms defaulted to non-lethal damage. However, watching Batman reduced to Batstain by a couple of lucky rolls from a henchthug felt even more wrong.

Buying STR at Range should basically give you TK. Allowing STR to be applied to Blast only enhances ranged damage. It does not provide ranged grabs, trips, throws, moving objects, etc. etc. nor does it add any element of Indirect to the Blast. Just like the current addition of STR to HKA only increases the damage of the HKA. But the advantage implicit to an HKA is not on STR, so you are leaving the orphan mechanic of the HKA. It would add 1DC per 5 STR just like it adds 1 DC per 5 STR to an HKA. You already buy a 1d6 HKA with Can Apply STR baked in, and a 45 STR. 60 points. Why would I buy a 15 STR and 3d6 HKA for exactly the same price? Does +30 STR have no value other than augmenting the HKA? To be clear, I am primarily arguing that we should eliminate the "STR Adds" rule entirely - including HKA. Your analysis of why "STR adds" creates inappropriate bargain pricing is 100% consistent with removing "STR adds" from HKA to make the system consistent in this regard. The "doubling rule" only created a breakpoint. Outside of the 1e villains who ended up with 1d6 + 1d6 KA attacks because they were not revised when 2e added the doubling rule, how many published characters did not have the right STR to double their HKA?

Why would this be an advantage on STR? You don't get a limitation on STR for "Does not increase HKA". The argument many set out has always been that there is a base 10 point KA that has no range and is not enhanced by STR, and it comes bundled with either Range (which we know is +1/2) or increased by STR (extrapolating +1/2 because the same cost applies). Regardless of how we model this, it has a scaling issue. Buy 60 STR and spend 30 on "adds to attacks". Now buy a Multipower of many different attacks, 1 DC each, all augmented by STR. Or, if you are going back to pre-6e doubling rules, 30 STR and 15 for "adds to attacks" and the MP goes to 6 DCs. When I can either have a 3d6 HKA and a 15 STR (so 4d6 HKA) or a 2d6 HKA and 30 STR (so the same 4d6 HKA and all the benefits of an extra 15 STR for half the cost), there is already a problem. Point balance is often very murky, but when you can have the same cost for all the same benefits, plus more, that is a clear imbalance. If a HA needs to cost more for AVAD to apply, that just seems to indicate that AVAD is underpriced. So I can either buy a 12d6 Blast (60 points) or a 1d6 Blast, STR adds (7 points) and 55 STR (45 points). Which seems like the better deal? "You have to buy STR at range" seems to fly in the face of the absolute prohibition of buying STR at range. Mental Illusions don't have PER rolls. And all attacks have a built-in mechanic for adding damage. You buy more dice. Additions for STR (or any other characteristic) provides an alternative mechanic for adding more dice which will only be used if it is less expensive; same cost but you get more; or even a bit more expensive but the added benefits of the higher characteristic still offset, or more than offset, the extra cost. Why should it be more expensive to add damage based on DEX, or CON, or whatever? Don't we get what we pay for in Hero? Most variants to move KA to 1d6 per 1DC increase the BOD damage by either counting 1s as 1 BOD or 5s as 2 BOD, so a 12 DC KA still averages 14 BOD. Dropping STUN to an average of 2 2/3 puts average STUN of a 12 DC KA at 32 (versus 42 for a normal attack). That's better than the 28 average of a 6e KA, but not as high as the pre-6e average a bit over 37. Eliminating the STUN lotto probably makes this reasonably comparable to a 6e KA.

Leaving aside "why should "adds STR" be an option instead of buying more dice, perhaps linked to STR... Why can't other attacks also spend the same +1/2 advantage to add STR? What, mechanically, makes this appropriate for HA and HKA but not for other attack powers? Why can't the same addition be applied with other characteristics? My mental fortitude (EGO) enhances my Mental Blast. My intelligence allows me to craft more skillful mental illusions. My agility (DEX) allows me to strike more precisely, thereby causing more damage. The reality is that a +1/2 advantage just means "buy this instead of more DCs if it's less expensive".

At one time, HA was 3 points per +1d6. This was problematic for those using AP as a measure of power, and made it much easier to slap a big HA in a framework. A lot depends on whether one views HA as a Blast with No Range to which STR can be added, or STR that only does damage. I subscribe to the latter view. There is no rule to prevent applying Attack vs Alternative Defense to STR damage so it works against ED, a +0 advantage. HKA is the true outlier. No other attack power is increased by another ability. If we ditched HKA and simply had Killing Attack (same price and model as current RKA), you could buy an RKA with no Range. Want to do more damage because you are strong? Slap some extra No Range KA dice on with Unified Power to STR, or Locking out the use of the same AP of STR for damage. **but but but** swords would be more complicated. Maybe in build. Not in play. You don't buy swords with points in fantasy games anyway. HA has always been tough to reconcile with MA damage classes. 4 points for 1d6 that only does damage (no Grabs, Escapes, etc.) that costs END doesn't seem like a great bargain. But at least some of that is underpricing MA DCs. So the player whose SFX are punching really hard, but not lifting a bus, should pay the same as a player whose SFX is being really strong and getting lifting, escape, grab & hold, etc.? That's concept penalization. To me, "build any character you can imagine" comes with an implicit "who will be reasonably competitive with characters other players imagine".

Have to say that what I really see here is arguments for better scrutinizing limitations. A -1/4 limitation is expected to have an impact in play. If it does not, then it should not be a limitation. If the limited range is still so much range that the limitation has no impact, it is worth no points. Ditto a skill roll that has no impact, an OIAID if the character will always be free to adopt that AID or a Focus that will never be damaged or unavailable. If we're going to allow -1/4 or -1/2 limitations for issues that never, or almost never, come up in the game, why not just give everyone a -1/4 or -1/2 AutoLimitation, rather than allow players prepared to game the system to gain advantages over players using the system for a game?

7d6/9d6 would reflect a "whole dice only" approach. When did half dice become official?

On one side, 15 fixed slots feels much more limiting than "it changes to whatever you want". On the other hand, 150 points in a 60 AP game is a big investment either way. Viewed another way, for 90 points (the control cost) a large portion of your character's abilities can be reconfigured at your discretion. Having spent that 90 points to make the Swiss Army Multipower into a VPP, why not toss in your defense and movement powers? That means you have a bigger pool and can move those points around as well if it becomes worthwhile. Of course, anything PCs can do, NPCs can do. The value of configurable defenses drops off a lot if all the opponents have configurable attacks. As well, the game will bog down fast if a half dozen inexperienced players are all reconfiguring their powers every phase, and the GM is managing the same for half a dozen opponents. Both No Skill Roll and using a skill will scale with AP. For 21 points versus 31, the savings is basically a -1/2 limitation. That's high for a 16- activation. But a pure activation roll won't change if the characteristic your skill roll is based on is somehow impeded (drains, change environment, etc.) If you have also tossed your defenses and movement into the VPP, do you want to reconfigure your attack, your defenses or your movement. The more AP you add for one swap, the greater your chances of failing the roll. Taking a half or full phase to switch means giving up on actions, which is pretty painful in play. It also makes a missed roll even more painful. 6e's segregation of control cost helped a lot - that weaponsmaster with an OAF now doesn't have to buy a 60 point pool to have a single 60 AP attack with -1 in limitations always in the pool.

Emphasis added. If the roll is meaningless, then it is not limiting, so it saves no points. It's a lot more meaningful if you want to customize them in combat, though. I'm mixing terminology; sorry. Duke will back me up, I am sure, that "Ultra" was the old term for "fixed slot", so I'm comparing only to the traditional Swiss army attacks multipower. The VPP is infinitely more flexible out of the box.

This suggests that those mechanical web shooters do not belong in your Spider Powers EC. A tight concept of a human with spider powers seems loosened when he's a combination of natural superpowers and gadgeteering. And no GM would ever have allowed Danger Sense as a spider power if Stan Lee had not added a "spider sense" to Peter Parker. Sounds like your one laser gun with many setting should have applied Unified Power to all of those settings, doesn't it? But why would Draining its laser power make it less effective when I use that HA slot and club the villain with the butt of the laser rife, or dull the bayonet? Draining my handgun should not drain my hand grenade either. Those turbines also suggest unified power, but the jet pack and flippers don't see like they would both be drained by the same adjustment power. It also means that your 60 point powers only activate 62.5% of the time, and the full phase you use to try to change one has a 37.5% chance of just wasting your phase. Recalling that skill rolls are penalized based on AP. One challenge with designing a VPP is that using it for a power you almost always want (like base defenses) just adds costs. That power is better purchased outside the VPP. They are just a very flexible MP. A 60 point VPP with a 30 control cost, change with no skill roll and zero phase, costs 150 points. A 60 point Multipower with 15 Ultra slots costs the same 150 points. This assumes no limitations on types of powers, and no limitation on the pool itself, but demonstrates that it doesn't take all that many slots before the VPP becomes the cost-effective choice. Let's try that attack power in an OAF build. MP - 60 point pool with -1 OAF limitation = 30 + 3 per slot. VPP - 30 point pool + 30 point control cost, Cosmic, OAF adds 45 so 75 in total. 45/3 = 15 slots is still the breakeven. Looking to the source material, most Supers with a lengthy history should have a VPP for all the creative uses they have made of their powers over the years.