Hugh Neilson

The flexibility of a VPP comes with the Control Cost, which erodes the character's CP (even more rapidly if he wants to change the powers in combat rapidly and reliably).  No one ends up with "everything you want all at once", but having an attack, defense and misc/movement power up at the same time (Green Lantern flying, attacking and having a force field) strikes me as both in-genre and balanced.  Ditto a wizard with more than one spell active at a time.
 
 
Again, the control cost addresses this. Would you also cap the Multipower pool? All your approach does is incent a framework for attacks and direct purchase of other abilities,  Or multiple Pools (perhaps an Attack multipower, defenses bought directly and a VPP for movement and miscellaneous powers; multiple frameworks, even of the same type, are perfectly legal as well).
 
 
AP limits are for whatever you want them to be for.  I recall Steve Long responding to a concern about AP in the SETAC days that AP limits are not part of the Hero rules, and he was not designing rules around AP limits.  Power Defense is a much more effective means of avoiding issues with adjustment powers anyway.

The catch is that he have no "decapitation" mechanic. A Hero character does not die because his head is lopped off - we have no mechanic to lop off his head. We describe his head being removed at the neck because the character is killed using other mechanics.

Why should the size of the pool be limited at all? I would require, as a campaign standard (so no points saved as a limitation) that the maximum AP of any single power in the pool be the campaign max AP.  I would require the same of a Multipower, but I would not cap the pool.  There is no reason that a character could not have several VPP or Multipower slots active at the same time, and as long as no single power exceeds the campaign max AP, this strikes me as not being at all problematic.
 
In 6e, this is even easier to administer - the control cost cannot be purchased to allow any powers over campaign max AP.

The flexibility of a VPP comes with the Control Cost, which erodes the character's CP (even more rapidly if he wants to change the powers in combat rapidly and reliably).  No one ends up with "everything you want all at once", but having an attack, defense and misc/movement power up at the same time (Green Lantern flying, attacking and having a force field) strikes me as both in-genre and balanced.  Ditto a wizard with more than one spell active at a time.
 
 
Again, the control cost addresses this. Would you also cap the Multipower pool? All your approach does is incent a framework for attacks and direct purchase of other abilities,  Or multiple Pools (perhaps an Attack multipower, defenses bought directly and a VPP for movement and miscellaneous powers; multiple frameworks, even of the same type, are perfectly legal as well).
 
 
AP limits are for whatever you want them to be for.  I recall Steve Long responding to a concern about AP in the SETAC days that AP limits are not part of the Hero rules, and he was not designing rules around AP limits.  Power Defense is a much more effective means of avoiding issues with adjustment powers anyway.

Why should the size of the pool be limited at all? I would require, as a campaign standard (so no points saved as a limitation) that the maximum AP of any single power in the pool be the campaign max AP.  I would require the same of a Multipower, but I would not cap the pool.  There is no reason that a character could not have several VPP or Multipower slots active at the same time, and as long as no single power exceeds the campaign max AP, this strikes me as not being at all problematic.
 
In 6e, this is even easier to administer - the control cost cannot be purchased to allow any powers over campaign max AP.

I've toyed with a "randomize SPD" model to simulate a Plane of Chaos, or disjointed time, but in general, I prefer the SPD chart.

I've toyed with a "randomize SPD" model to simulate a Plane of Chaos, or disjointed time, but in general, I prefer the SPD chart.

I'm still doing that indoors around groups of people, on public transit etc. And sanitizing my hands after I touch anything that multiple people also touched. I intend to keep it up for the foreseeable future. Besides minimizing my risk of catching COVID, I haven't had a cold or 'flu in over two years, and I'd like to keep it that way.
 
 
I had it too, eight or nine months ago. Likewise, no worse than a bad cold for two days, then the symptoms started to fade, and were gone in a week. Isolating was annoying but not too problematic. I was fully vaccinated when I caught it, and I have no doubt the outcome would have been much worse if I wasn't.

I had it a few months back and, while I agree it was not pleasant, it was much like any bad cold I've had in the past 25 years or so.  I would not have known it was COVID had I not self-tested.  And I was very glad I was vaccinated (with booster), and that I was still "masking in motion" so I could be more confident I had not infected anyone around me.

I had it a few months back and, while I agree it was not pleasant, it was much like any bad cold I've had in the past 25 years or so.  I would not have known it was COVID had I not self-tested.  And I was very glad I was vaccinated (with booster), and that I was still "masking in motion" so I could be more confident I had not infected anyone around me.

BINGO: We might look at a damage roll that slays a target (down to negative BOD equal to total BOD score) with a hit location in that region (be it head, torso or shoulder) and say "You have decapitated him - his body collapses as his head rolls down the hill", but all we have done is specify the special effect for the mechanic of "killed dead". Given we think of "decapitated" as "dead", perhaps we could require the character take some extra BOD, or defenses, or just "no hit locations; head only" with IPE, but that's just sugar-coating it.
 
Maybe we think it has in-game effects. 
 
Perhaps he needs "Striking appearance" triggered by a head hit (or some other mechanic) because the decapitated target continuing to function is terrifying.
 
Or maybe it's just "Distinctive Features" - that's certainly the kind of thing one notices, probably with an extreme reaction.
 
But if it has no in-game effect, it's just a special effect. Most characters don't have their heads fall off while they are still alive. So what?  Most characters don't have flourescent green hair, or a third eye in the middle of their forehead, or pointed ears. My character can have any or all of these things.  And it costs no points if it has no mechanical impact in-game.
 
If anything, having to cart your head around and point it in the right direction to see, rather than having it properly secured at the top of your torso, seems limiting rather than advantageous.
 
 
But this is a completely separate power.  Simply defining my character as having a removable head, having no head (Arnim Zola) or having multiple heads (a hydra) does not confer any special in-game benefit. It might be the special effect of an in-game benefit which is paid for as a separate mechanical ability.
 
Maybe that's "Regeneration, with resurrection adder, the special way to keep him dead is destroying the phylactery" with the Susceptibility of 3d6 BOD damage per segment if phylactery destroyed" - that does not mean he can take unlimited damage without being temporarily incapacitated, but the lich can have its body destroyed and be pretty useless until it gets a new one.
 

I know it won't make either of you feel better, but I just want to remind everyone that this was the actual objective of the vaccination program: to get to the point where COVID is for most people an aggravation, rather than a trauma and possible mortal threat. It's a huge step forward.

I know better, bur I am stupid enough that I am going to do this anyway, so sit back, grab the popcorn, and watch the beating unfold. 
 
can anyone point out where in the rules being decapitated means you have to die?
 
remember that not only are hit locations optional, so, too, are the bleeding rules.  Even if you _are_ using the bleeding rules, there is quite a lot of leeway to decide what results in bleeding and what doesn't.  Assuming that you are, then when you take an amount of BODY that reduces you to negative, you bleed.
 
okay; fine.
 
if you take a headshot, you suffer a BODY multiplier to your damage.
 
okay; great.
 
Problematically, decapitation is _not_ a head wound.  We can argue that later, of course.  As written, it could be considered a torso wound, so figure your damage accordingly.
 
HERO doesn't do Location X has Y Hit Points, so we don't really have a method of determining just how much damage applied directly to the neck (which is not available on the hit location chart, but let's just say that it is a Called Shot with modifiers akin to a called ahot to the head) it takes to remove a head.
 
I am not completely certain, but I am willing to bet that it is less than enough Body damage to reduce the character to negative Body.
 
This is one of thise instances where the superhero / SFX are free thing really shows itself.  Because you can declare that your character is a robot or a cyborg or a sapient tree, you do not automatically fall over bleeding when someone lips off your anything.
 
We view it as a given because we know that people tend to much sooner without their heads attached than they do if the head remains in place.  Regardless of our biases, however, the rules don't actually make it mandatory.
 
That being said, strictly by RAW, there is absolutely no power construct required to remain alive after decapitation (speaking may be impaired a not, but that isnt mandated, either, I am,afraid). Nor is that, according to RAW, any way to actually decapitate someone short of completely pulverizing their torso (again, breathing may be impaired a bit, but it is still not mandatory).
 
Granted, releasing this bit of news to your players may result in lots of decapitated heroes fighting bravely on for decades, wearing their heads on a necklace like some gruesome pendant.
 
All that being said, I would think that the options for your build are, by raw, as simpke as declaring that decapitation doesn't kill them.  Granted, this will encourage some to run to the rules questions thread and ask for a new rule regarding decapitation, so I will go further and say this is as simple as making it a perk (possibly as part of a package).  Beyond that, consider the automaton power "does not bleed" and call it a day.
 
 
Now then, go ahead.  Feel free to beat me like I was the third monkey on Noah's Ark.
 

 
 
 
 

I believe LL* is from central Canada (Ontario; Toronto?). Out here in the West, we have a sense of humour.  Carry on!
 
One does need to understand how Canada works in practice.  To truly understand this, a map of Canada will help (there's one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada).
 
Now picture a cow standing over the map, facing west. The cow leans down to graze on the orchards of British Columbia and the grains on the Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba).  Its udders lie over Ontario and Quebec, who skim off all of the cream.  And it is best not to think of what happens to Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland).
 
Truly, a picture is worth a thousand words!
 
* A drama teacher?  Justin, is that you?  [Bonus points to any non-Canadian who gets that reference...]

Re: The Boys
 
The Boys would be good candidates for Damage Negation. Attacks below a certain threshhold are virtually useless, but above that level, they take damage pretty consistently.

I believe LL* is from central Canada (Ontario; Toronto?). Out here in the West, we have a sense of humour.  Carry on!
 
One does need to understand how Canada works in practice.  To truly understand this, a map of Canada will help (there's one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada).
 
Now picture a cow standing over the map, facing west. The cow leans down to graze on the orchards of British Columbia and the grains on the Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba).  Its udders lie over Ontario and Quebec, who skim off all of the cream.  And it is best not to think of what happens to Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland).
 
Truly, a picture is worth a thousand words!
 
* A drama teacher?  Justin, is that you?  [Bonus points to any non-Canadian who gets that reference...]

On the topic of policing, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-why-is-it-so-much-easier-to-become-a-cop-in-canada-than-an-electrician/ caught my eye.  Finland requires 5,400 hours of training to be a police officer.  Germany and the Netherlands, around 4,000.  UK, over 2,000.
 
Canada?  Just over 1,000.  Basic RCMP (national force) is cited at 820 hours.
 
US? An average of 650 hours.
 
How much training should be required before someone is issued a gun and a badge?

On the topic of policing, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-why-is-it-so-much-easier-to-become-a-cop-in-canada-than-an-electrician/ caught my eye.  Finland requires 5,400 hours of training to be a police officer.  Germany and the Netherlands, around 4,000.  UK, over 2,000.
 
Canada?  Just over 1,000.  Basic RCMP (national force) is cited at 820 hours.
 
US? An average of 650 hours.
 
How much training should be required before someone is issued a gun and a badge?

Beam was probably a not the ideal choice for the name.   What beam really is intended to simulate is something like a gun or similar weapon.   I am not sure what a better name would be so I really cannot blame them for using beam.
 
If I have a flame thrower, I can widen the stream or even use a sweeping motion to explain what his happening when I spread it.  I can also adjust the flow on fuel, so it does less damage.   When I damage something the flame mushrooms out and affects a large area therefore opening a “large” hole.  Beam is probably not an appropriate limitation on a flamethrower.
 
What possible explanation do I have for a bullet doing these things?  Without firing more bullets there is no way to spread the attack.  Firing more bullets is the advantage auto fire.  When you fire a bullet, you cannot make the bullet go slower to do less damage?  Bullets do their damage by concentrating the kinetic force in a relatively small area. 
 
The Body of an item is how much damage it can take before it is broken, not how much damage it takes to destroy it.  To destroy and item you need to do twice the listed body.  Destroying an item is the equivalent of killing a creature.  In both cases the target is killed/destroyed when it reaches negative of its positive body.   When a large caliber gun blows something apart that is because it did enough body to destroy the object, not because it broke the object. 

Small is a relative term. Keep in mind that an attack without the beam limitation exceeds the DEF and Body of a barrier it creates a 2m wide by 2m high by 2m deep hole in the barrier.   Basically, it creates a hole large enough for a normal sized person to walk through.  An attack with the beam limitation could create a hole in the barrier that was several inches wide, maybe even a foot wide and still be considered “small”.
 
 
The beam limitation was created to simulate a specific type of attack.   It is not and never has been just about not being able to be spread.  That Limitation would be a -0 limitation. 

Generally speaking, including a weak assertion which is easily picked apart or shown to be spurious, irrelevant, or poorly reasoned as part of a larger argument only serves to weaken the larger argument and undermine your general position. 

The beam limitation in both 5th and 6th edition has 3 parts.  The first part states it cannot be spread, the second part states must be used at full power, and the last is that it explicitly states that it only creates a small hole in the character or object.  Most people only pay attention to the first part, but if your attack can do the second or third thing, it does not qualify for the beam limitation
 
When you take a limitation on a power it is affected by all things the limitation covers.  If it is able to ignore any aspect of what is listed on the limitation you cannot take it but may be able to create a similar limitation for a lesser amount.  Considering Beam is a -1/4 limitation that means an attack that cannot be spread but can be used at less than full power, and or creates more than a small hole gets a -0 limitation
 
If you took beam on all your ranged attacks you may want to reconsider it.  Having it on all your ranged attacks is actually quite limiting.   Not being able to reduce the damage when shooting at a target without a lot of defenses is going to make it difficult to take down a target without severely injuring or killing them.  Using a 12d blast on normal with only 2 DEF is going to put them in the hospital on the first shot and may cripple them. If you are using the disabling and impairing rules you have a very good chance of causing a permanent injury.  You are also going to be unable to bring down a barrier or blast open a door.  

Maybe my next character will buy an 8d6 Blast and 14 3 point Skill Levels; for a total cost 82 points he can have a 15d6 Blast at his normal OCV and DCV, or 12d6 with +6 OCV or DCV (or mix & match).
 
7 points more than a 15d6 Blast, but he doesn't need as much END since the skill levels have no END cost.
 
I'm not sure Spreading is the issue you perceive it to be, relative to other options.

An interview with the designers when 2e came out indicated that they had intended Spreading from the outset (but "Magneto attacked the disks") to provide some extra benefits to Energy Blasts as compared to STR.
 
The rules already say a limitation that does not limit saves no points.
 
 
This highlights how valuable skill levels could be.  +4d6 Blast can be +4 OCV, +4d6 or target multiple targets for 20 points.
 
8 3 point skill levels costs 24 points, and I can get +4d6, +8 OCV or +8 DCV - and it costs no END.  Maybe those 3-point skill levels are underpriced.  20 points for +4 levels that can add +4 OCV or DCV, or +2d6 Blast, at zero END, seems a bit more comparable, doesn't it?
 
Leaving aside Martial Arts as their own beast, but I can't buy the bonuses more than once.
 
 
I don't see that bullet knocking a man-size (or larger) hole in a chain link fence, or a brick wall.  However unrealistic, that's our "comic booky" default.

If you don't think "can't spread" has enough negative impact to justify the -1/4 limitation, deny the limitation.  I find Spreading adds a useful tactical option, both in its "mini-AoE" model and its "enhance OCV at the cost of damage" option.
 
I recall a suggestion (maybe a rule) that Beam also meant you just punched a tiny hope in a wall, etc., rather than knocking it down.  That would make Beams much less useful against barriers and Entangles.