Hugh Neilson

YMMV is the key.  How do you want combat to flow in the game?  If, in your game, you want a STUN result to be extremely rare, then defenses and CON should support that.  I don't think that is the intention of the rules - just write out Stunned entirely if it's never intended to happen.  But it's frustrating to players to lose an action, and it puts that Stunned character at a significant disadvantage.
 
Maybe we want a game where it takes 3 - 4 hits to KO in a typical combat.  Defense and STUN totals should be set accordingly.  Maybe you want more rapid combat where 1 -2 attacks can take a character down.  OK, lower defenses to DC.  Or perhaps you prefer longer combats, so you want characters to last through half a dozen hits before being taken out of the fight.  OK, higher defenses to DC.
 
As long as the group is OK with the speed, volatility and risk levels in combat, no choice is "wrong", just different.  Supers combat tends to go on for lengthy periods.  Wild West shootouts might have a fair chance of one hit ending the gunfight, and maybe even ending the character.
 
The only real problem I can envision is when the characters are not consistent.  If the game expects 3-4 solid hits to KO, including being Stunned from 20% of hits, a player who says "nuh-uh!  my characters are designed to never get stunned and soak up at least 6 hits before being KOd" isn't in step with the group. Neither is the one who builds a character who can be KO'd by one good shot, won't weather two and will be stunned by any above-average hit.  There will be a bit of a range, but too wide a range will have more fragile characters with frustrated players watching as the durable characters play half the game session while they are KOd.

Flowing from Unclevlad's comments, one element of Hero game design that does not get nearly enough attention is the DC to Defense ratio.
 
Combat is very different depending on this choice.  Consider that 12 DC game, and assume typical defenses of 24.  (1:2 ratio) An average attack will roll 42 STUN and get 18 STUN past defenses.  A good roll  could STUN a 23 CON character.  If characters have around 40 STUN, 3 hits will just KO them and 4 should put them down, before we consider recoveries.  I'd expect combats with 5-6 SPD characters to end inside of 2 turns.
 
Let's move the goalposts - assume typical defenses of 30.  (1:2.5 ratio) An average attack will roll 42 STUN and get 12 STUN past defenses.  Very few rolls will be high enough to STUN a 23 CON character.  If characters have around 40 STUN, it takes 4 hits to KO them and 5 to put them down, before we consider recoveries.  I'd expect combats with 5-6 SPD characters to last over 2 turns, maybe longer.
 
More extreme, assume typical defenses of 36.  (1:3 ratio) An average attack will roll 42 STUN and only get 6 STUN past defenses.  No one is getting STUNNED.  If characters have around 40 STUN, it will take 7 hits to barely KO them and another 1 or 2 will be needed to put them down, before we consider recoveries. Now, they are definitely getting recoveries!  I'd expect combats with 5-6 SPD characters to last 5 turns or more.
 
That chart is insane - raising DCs by 2 and average defenses by 15 radically changes the ratio.  Average damage past defenses at the 12 DC line will be 20 - that will make for a bit more common STUN results, and fairly short combats. At the 14d6 line, we drop to 12 average  damage past defenses.  Combat will be longer. 
 
At 16 and 20 DC, we're averaging 4 and 2 STUN past defenses. Combat will never end.

To me, the "doubling for 5 points" rule was meant to provide a backup focus if the original were lost, damaged, etc.  It was not intended to mean you had multiple devices all usable simultaneously.  That has never made its way into the rules explicitly, though, leaving the door open for MultiArm Ring Man.

Mine was a scarecrow-themed member of a fantasy villain team (Kor Hunter's dimension for those who remember him). A small Penetrating KA by a swarm of crows proved devastating, and they lost the battle.  [OK - that allows for the classic "heroes vs big ugly monster in an arena" deathtrap, so we can fail forward.]
 
I didn't intend that particular group to make a second appearance, but the players' discussions and plans of how they would approach a rematch persuaded me - and they crushed their opponents in that rematch, focusing attention on the scarecrow and another that had been especially effective at the outset. So what felt like an "oops, overpowered the enemy" bust turned into a great rematch because the players took a defeat in stride.

Mine was a scarecrow-themed member of a fantasy villain team (Kor Hunter's dimension for those who remember him). A small Penetrating KA by a swarm of crows proved devastating, and they lost the battle.  [OK - that allows for the classic "heroes vs big ugly monster in an arena" deathtrap, so we can fail forward.]
 
I didn't intend that particular group to make a second appearance, but the players' discussions and plans of how they would approach a rematch persuaded me - and they crushed their opponents in that rematch, focusing attention on the scarecrow and another that had been especially effective at the outset. So what felt like an "oops, overpowered the enemy" bust turned into a great rematch because the players took a defeat in stride.

Mine was a scarecrow-themed member of a fantasy villain team (Kor Hunter's dimension for those who remember him). A small Penetrating KA by a swarm of crows proved devastating, and they lost the battle.  [OK - that allows for the classic "heroes vs big ugly monster in an arena" deathtrap, so we can fail forward.]
 
I didn't intend that particular group to make a second appearance, but the players' discussions and plans of how they would approach a rematch persuaded me - and they crushed their opponents in that rematch, focusing attention on the scarecrow and another that had been especially effective at the outset. So what felt like an "oops, overpowered the enemy" bust turned into a great rematch because the players took a defeat in stride.

I know they were published in the old (pre-Online) Adventurers' Club, probably near the end of its run, but I don't recall which issue.

I know they were published in the old (pre-Online) Adventurers' Club, probably near the end of its run, but I don't recall which issue.

I suspect that, if Hero had started with Aid and Drain and no Transfer, a Link construct would have evolved.  Issues like "oh, Aid is maxed out; Drain stops working" would be resolved, and the AoE issue would not arise as there's no point putting AoE on an Aid, Self Only, so you get everyone in the area with the Drain and you get one Aid.
 
I would, however, think that a Transfer as a "Talent" type build (the full construction behind the scenes; here's your cost per 1d6 Transfer; pick the stat it drains from the target and the stat it increases for you; it affects one target at standard range; your gains cap out like Aid and they keep losing stats even if you are already at capacity.
 
And make a second one where the power heals, rather than Aids, the character.

Adventurers Club ran a survey on this back in the pre-4e days. The results were very broad-ranging, with examples like 12 DC and defenses in the 30-35 range (where fights would be slow, and looking for ways to add damage was common) and 15 DC with 15 - 20 defenses where combat was quick, emphasizing tactics like Block, Dodge and finding Cover, and first strike was crucial.  That may have motivated the limited guidelines provided in 4e.

Adventurers Club ran a survey on this back in the pre-4e days. The results were very broad-ranging, with examples like 12 DC and defenses in the 30-35 range (where fights would be slow, and looking for ways to add damage was common) and 15 DC with 15 - 20 defenses where combat was quick, emphasizing tactics like Block, Dodge and finding Cover, and first strike was crucial.  That may have motivated the limited guidelines provided in 4e.

YMMV is the key.  How do you want combat to flow in the game?  If, in your game, you want a STUN result to be extremely rare, then defenses and CON should support that.  I don't think that is the intention of the rules - just write out Stunned entirely if it's never intended to happen.  But it's frustrating to players to lose an action, and it puts that Stunned character at a significant disadvantage.
 
Maybe we want a game where it takes 3 - 4 hits to KO in a typical combat.  Defense and STUN totals should be set accordingly.  Maybe you want more rapid combat where 1 -2 attacks can take a character down.  OK, lower defenses to DC.  Or perhaps you prefer longer combats, so you want characters to last through half a dozen hits before being taken out of the fight.  OK, higher defenses to DC.
 
As long as the group is OK with the speed, volatility and risk levels in combat, no choice is "wrong", just different.  Supers combat tends to go on for lengthy periods.  Wild West shootouts might have a fair chance of one hit ending the gunfight, and maybe even ending the character.
 
The only real problem I can envision is when the characters are not consistent.  If the game expects 3-4 solid hits to KO, including being Stunned from 20% of hits, a player who says "nuh-uh!  my characters are designed to never get stunned and soak up at least 6 hits before being KOd" isn't in step with the group. Neither is the one who builds a character who can be KO'd by one good shot, won't weather two and will be stunned by any above-average hit.  There will be a bit of a range, but too wide a range will have more fragile characters with frustrated players watching as the durable characters play half the game session while they are KOd.

YMMV is the key.  How do you want combat to flow in the game?  If, in your game, you want a STUN result to be extremely rare, then defenses and CON should support that.  I don't think that is the intention of the rules - just write out Stunned entirely if it's never intended to happen.  But it's frustrating to players to lose an action, and it puts that Stunned character at a significant disadvantage.
 
Maybe we want a game where it takes 3 - 4 hits to KO in a typical combat.  Defense and STUN totals should be set accordingly.  Maybe you want more rapid combat where 1 -2 attacks can take a character down.  OK, lower defenses to DC.  Or perhaps you prefer longer combats, so you want characters to last through half a dozen hits before being taken out of the fight.  OK, higher defenses to DC.
 
As long as the group is OK with the speed, volatility and risk levels in combat, no choice is "wrong", just different.  Supers combat tends to go on for lengthy periods.  Wild West shootouts might have a fair chance of one hit ending the gunfight, and maybe even ending the character.
 
The only real problem I can envision is when the characters are not consistent.  If the game expects 3-4 solid hits to KO, including being Stunned from 20% of hits, a player who says "nuh-uh!  my characters are designed to never get stunned and soak up at least 6 hits before being KOd" isn't in step with the group. Neither is the one who builds a character who can be KO'd by one good shot, won't weather two and will be stunned by any above-average hit.  There will be a bit of a range, but too wide a range will have more fragile characters with frustrated players watching as the durable characters play half the game session while they are KOd.

I suspect that, if Hero had started with Aid and Drain and no Transfer, a Link construct would have evolved.  Issues like "oh, Aid is maxed out; Drain stops working" would be resolved, and the AoE issue would not arise as there's no point putting AoE on an Aid, Self Only, so you get everyone in the area with the Drain and you get one Aid.
 
I would, however, think that a Transfer as a "Talent" type build (the full construction behind the scenes; here's your cost per 1d6 Transfer; pick the stat it drains from the target and the stat it increases for you; it affects one target at standard range; your gains cap out like Aid and they keep losing stats even if you are already at capacity.
 
And make a second one where the power heals, rather than Aids, the character.

So, again, my question:
 
Phase 3: pay x END to "activate" Telekinesis as a Zero Phase Action.  Like switching on a light.
Phase 3: pay x END to use Telekinesis that phase for whatever action you choose.
Phase 6: pay no END to maintain Telekinesis, the light is still switched offn.
Phase 9: Pay no END to maintain Telekinesis, the light is still switched offn.
Phase 12: Turn onff Telekinesis by not paying any END.  The character cannot use TK this phase unless they switch it back on.
 
Why would this character choose to keep the TK "on" in Phases 6 and 9 when they can avoid the END cost and just switch it back on in Ph 12 when they want to use it again?
 
 Exactly.  The example above now works perfectly - pay double END in each phase of use and no END in phases when it is not used.

That's because you're buying things badly.  In a 12 DC game, DR may not work out, no.  Or it might, if done with proper consideration to an overall defense plan.  Nor is 5 DEF and 8 DC Negation necessarily smart;  it's too much Negation.  Negation is for reducing STUN first.  Oh, and players who think, buy some of the Negation as STUN Only.
 
But a couple BODY getting through occasionally isn't "bloody Iron Age."  It's not Silver Age supers, either, where no one ever takes BODY.  I WANT the risk.  Yes, I want the character build to risk taking some BODY.  I also target the overall defense build to the damage.  If I've gotta worry about 15 DCs, then 5 DEF and 8 Negation is stupid.  Heck, in a 12 DC where 4d killing is on the table, then 5 rDEF and 8 Negation is dangerous.  I don't think "oh it's all one thing or another."  I'll mix and match MUCH more.  My patterns are oriented to urban fantasy/modern supers fiction...where heroes MAY WELL get hurt, and death IS an occupational risk.  

This sounds like: Increased END, x2 for -1/2 Limitation. 
 
Unless there are other Limitations or Advantages dependent upon having TK “on”.
 
 

So, how would that work?  Phase 3, I decide I want to use my (say) 40 STR TK that costs 6 END, so I activate it, spending 6 END to toggle it on and 6 END to throw a boulder at my opponent from behind him.  Phase 6, I decide not to use my TK, so I can either spend 6 END to keep it running in the background, or just let it shut down.  In Phase 9, I want to use it again, so 6 END to activate or maintain it, plus 6 END to use it.
 
How does my decision whether to maintain or close my TK in Phase 6 affect what happens in Phase 9?

Whatever you're missing is also what I was missing, as I found the "buy it once for each element" model problematic at best.  The philosophy behind that ruling was unfathomable to me.
 
Under "transfer as a single power", I would go with the complex Advantage of Delayed Recovery (+1) (say, on 30 AP, so a cost of 30) Limited to only delay the Aid Recovery (for this example), so call that a -1 limitation on the Advantage.  Cost 30 + [30/2 =] 15 for a 45 point power.   But that assumes the Aid and Drain components have equal value.

I don't recall a ton of discussion on ECs, so I think Steve pretty much assessed that one on his own, but they definitely saw a lot of rules questions.

And yet all of those special defenses could be purchased in one or more force fields and be perfectly legal in an EC.  "Special powers can only go in frameworks with GM permission" has resulted in a lot of variance between GMs on what can go into a framework.
 
What I saw evolve over the years as common design was a Swiss Army Multipower to hold a variety of Ultra slot attack powers, and an EC to hold a force field, a movement power and one or more utility powers.
 
Three 50 point powers in an EC would cost 100, rather than 150, points, the equivalent of a -1/2 limitation on all of the powers.  Make it 5 and it costs 150 rather than 250, but that's getting pretty expensive. It would work if you only wanted one attack power, or perhaps if you wanted a Constant attack power (like Darkness) and a Fire & Forget attack power (like Blast). If you wanted a variety of attack choices, Multipower was the go-to.  5 different attacks for 75 points was a lot more cost-effective.
 
Multipower for abilities you only need one at a time; EC for abilities you need all at the same time.
 
When Combined Attacks came out, it seemed like prohibiting these with powers in a framework was a really bad call, as that could have been a reason to put more than one attack in an EC (usable at the same time) rather than a multipower (use one at a time).  By the time that evolved to "if they can all be used at the same time, you can use them all in a combined attack", EC had evolved into "Unified Power".
 
 

To me, the "doubling for 5 points" rule was meant to provide a backup focus if the original were lost, damaged, etc.  It was not intended to mean you had multiple devices all usable simultaneously.  That has never made its way into the rules explicitly, though, leaving the door open for MultiArm Ring Man.

To me, the "doubling for 5 points" rule was meant to provide a backup focus if the original were lost, damaged, etc.  It was not intended to mean you had multiple devices all usable simultaneously.  That has never made its way into the rules explicitly, though, leaving the door open for MultiArm Ring Man.

I'm not sure Canadians like LL and I want to go there right now...

Never been a fan of the doubling rule.  Consider The Modified Mandarin
 
+5 PD/+ ED 5 rDEF IIF Thumb Rings (12 points) doubled (+5).
 
60 point Multipower with 8 Fixed attack slots, IIF Finger Ring (86 points), Doubled 3 times (+15).
 
Or let's be really gross:
 
+1 PD/+1 ED/+1 Mental Def/+1 Sight Flash Def/+1 hearing Flash Def/+1 Smell/taste Flash Def/+1 Touch flash def/+1 Power Def rDEF IIF Thumb Rings (10 points) doubled 5 times (+25) so 32 rings (35 points).
 
60 point Multipower with 8 Fixed attack slots, IIF Finger Ring (86 points), Doubled 7 times (+35) so 128 rings (121 points).
 
Extra Limbs: 16 Arms, 5 points
 
That's 161 points spent.  I'll be needing either a big END reserve or a lot of END and REC!
 
For another 10 points, I can double it all again and have 32 arms - we'll wait and buy that with xp...