Hugh Neilson

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".
 
 

Lots of options - it's a very diverse country, geographically.  Do you want an old, established city or something recent, spurred by some new discovery?  You could build a city around some mineral resource in the Rocky Mountains, the Canadian shield or deep in the north.  You have three coasts to choose from, as well as the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence, if you want ports/water transit to explain the city's evolution.  No shortage of options.

Why is describing my intended action in combat, in exploration, in trap detection and removal, in infliltration, in research and in virtually every other situation, then allowing my character's skills and abilities to take over as we throw the dice "role playing", but describing my intended actions in a social setting and then allowing my character's skills and abilities to take over as we throw the dice "replacing role playing".
 
My character chooses his targets and his tactics in combat (wisely or foolishly) based on his personality. Ditto for exploration (perhaps he is careful and methodical, or maybe he is impulsive and hasty), trap detection and removal, infiltration, research and social interaction. Role playing means playing a character with goals, objectives, personal beliefs, character strengths and flaws rather than directing a pawn to the (perceived) most tactically advantageous choice in every situation.

Agree with Ninja Bear. 
 
My GM is not a fire-breathing dragon and I am not a stalwart Dwarven warrior. Combat mechanics  allow us an objective means to resolve my Dwarf, and his teammates', efforts to slay the dragon (and its efforts to respond in kind).
 
My GM is also not the Chancellor to the Emperor of the Western Kingdoms, nor am I a skilled diplomat. Social mechanics  allow us an objective means to resolve my diplomat's efforts to obtain an audience with the Emperor through the Chancellor.
 
How many gamers would accept "don't bother rolling - the dragon kills and eats you."?  Why are they more accepting of "Don't bother rolling - the Chancellor rejects your every request".?
 
Better tactics, like higher ground or an ambush, improve our odds against the dragon.  Better tactics, like knowing the Chancellor's likes and dislikes, and using them in our presentation, should improve our odds of persuading the Chancellor.

Personal skills, like knowing how to build an explosive the dragon's breath would set off, does not enter into the game. Why should the player's personal articulateness enter into the game?

Agree with Ninja Bear. 
 
My GM is not a fire-breathing dragon and I am not a stalwart Dwarven warrior. Combat mechanics  allow us an objective means to resolve my Dwarf, and his teammates', efforts to slay the dragon (and its efforts to respond in kind).
 
My GM is also not the Chancellor to the Emperor of the Western Kingdoms, nor am I a skilled diplomat. Social mechanics  allow us an objective means to resolve my diplomat's efforts to obtain an audience with the Emperor through the Chancellor.
 
How many gamers would accept "don't bother rolling - the dragon kills and eats you."?  Why are they more accepting of "Don't bother rolling - the Chancellor rejects your every request".?
 
Better tactics, like higher ground or an ambush, improve our odds against the dragon.  Better tactics, like knowing the Chancellor's likes and dislikes, and using them in our presentation, should improve our odds of persuading the Chancellor.

Personal skills, like knowing how to build an explosive the dragon's breath would set off, does not enter into the game. Why should the player's personal articulateness enter into the game?

Agree with Ninja Bear. 
 
My GM is not a fire-breathing dragon and I am not a stalwart Dwarven warrior. Combat mechanics  allow us an objective means to resolve my Dwarf, and his teammates', efforts to slay the dragon (and its efforts to respond in kind).
 
My GM is also not the Chancellor to the Emperor of the Western Kingdoms, nor am I a skilled diplomat. Social mechanics  allow us an objective means to resolve my diplomat's efforts to obtain an audience with the Emperor through the Chancellor.
 
How many gamers would accept "don't bother rolling - the dragon kills and eats you."?  Why are they more accepting of "Don't bother rolling - the Chancellor rejects your every request".?
 
Better tactics, like higher ground or an ambush, improve our odds against the dragon.  Better tactics, like knowing the Chancellor's likes and dislikes, and using them in our presentation, should improve our odds of persuading the Chancellor.

Personal skills, like knowing how to build an explosive the dragon's breath would set off, does not enter into the game. Why should the player's personal articulateness enter into the game?

Well, that’s a good thing isn’t it? At least I would think so.

Randomized results aren't a Hero strength. If I look to the effects, we have three damaging effects of various strengths (which works way better in D&D than in Hero where defenses will reduce damage), a CON Drain, an all or nothing Transform to stone, probably an all or nothing transform to Insane and EDM - Usable as an Attack, with one or two affecting any given target.
 
If I wanted to build something similar in Hero, I think I would Link a variety of attacks.  For Supers, probably looking at 12 DC, so let's say:
 
Fire 4d6 NND (8 DC)
 
Acid 8d6 AP (or 2 1/2d6 or 3d6 AP KA) (10 DC)
 
Lightning 12d6 (or 4d6 KA)
 
Poison 4d6 CON Drain with +1/2 increased recovery time (to be lethal, make it a BOD drain)
 
Petrification 4d6 all or nothing Transform is not likely to work - it takes 6d6 to average enough to Transform someone with 10 BOD on average.  I might make this a DEX drain instead, with the SFX of partial petrification
 
Insanity is similar - Transform or an INT or EGO drain, probably.
 
Extra Dimensional Movement UAA, but that is a nasty effect so maybe some different attack (perhaps a Flash or an Entangle).
 
Now buy 2 Multipowers with the seven attacks as Ultra slots. Limitation: slot is randomly selected (reduced no conscious control).  The second has a 7- Activation Roll (16.2% chance where rolling an 8 is a 12.5% chance) and cannot use the same slot.  Link the two so you use both at the same time.

That NCC limitation will have to be worked out with the GM.
 
I agree with LoneWolf, though, that this is not worth the effort to build.

I'd add that it's key the character can be different from you, and the game's mechanics can model those differences.
 
Lack of adequately playable resolution for social interaction holds back a lot of games, that way.  You may be able to play your version of the Scarlet Pimpernel when he's fencing or shooting or maybe even making a daring escape, but when it comes to sly manipulation or bluff or seduction, it's just you try'n to BS your GM into saying it worked.
 

I don't think many characters can see the bullet coming towards them either. If they know they are being attacked, why would their DCV be impaired?
 
An Invisible attack through a focus is likely a sniper's weapon - the user attempts to find a concealed location so that the precise location from which the target is being attacked is difficult to determine.

I don't think many characters can see the bullet coming towards them either. If they know they are being attacked, why would their DCV be impaired?
 
An Invisible attack through a focus is likely a sniper's weapon - the user attempts to find a concealed location so that the precise location from which the target is being attacked is difficult to determine.

And this is Fantasy HERO.  I might have bought the fancy sword with points, making it mine and not to be taken away but, most likely it was treasure and so not paid for.  As a GM the point cost of the item is of interest to me, but not as much as the impact in gameplay.
 
I am interested in the game effect of an item far more than the point cost.
 
Whether it takes 10 points, for 2D6, or 30 points, for 6D6, what interests me is the additional damage per hit.  I want to know how much more effective that character becomes and whether it is now in a different league,  able to take on more significant challenges.
 
With cost taken out of the equation, I am now more interested in making the use of that sword, in play, more efficient.  Do I want to roll an extra D6 in one roll or an additional 6D6 in a second roll, with additional counting and reference to a second type of defence?
 
As a player I am interested in point costs. 🙂  But this gets to the same place for different reasons.  It is, as you say, much cheaper to add 1D6 and so I will build it that way.  
 
Of course, as a player and a GM, an alternative is open to me.  As you say ED is often lower than PD and I might choose to apply the whole attack versus ED making it generally more effective with no increase in cost.
 
Everything comes down to build and whether the GM is open to a proposed to build to achieve a particular outcome. Often, the closer a build is to the described SFX, the better but sometimes you just want something easy, that gets the job done.  That can be saying the electricity running up and down the blade is a sign of its eldritch puissance and that energy adds to the damage to those struck "add another 1D6 to your damage roll, Joe".
 
Sometimes as HERO players (and GMs) we think too much.  That can be fun but it shouldn't make the game more difficult to play without a good reason.
 
Doc

This is a large part of the reason that HA lets the initial PD attack become ED and be added to.  The "just add a bit of electric damage" works well in D&D since only things with special defenses will reduce that extra bit of damage at all. If they are resistant to electricity, well and good, they don't take that extra bit of electric damage, but against most targets, the full damage is done.
 
If the lighting just adds 2 DCs, that will be pretty useless if applied as a separate attack against the opponent's ED.  If it's only going to be minor damage, it probably needs to be advantaged to get past normal defenses to be useful. Alternatively, it converts all the damage to ED and adds to the sword attack.
 
So the first question is really whether this is one atatck (the Lightning Sword) or two (the Sword and the Lightning).
 
If the lightning is a viable second attack (say 6 DCs in a game where DCs tend to run 6 - 9 DCs), it's more viable to be a two-attack power with defenses applying normally to each attack.  However, that's a very pricy choice compared to just adding to the existing sword damage, which likely has already surpassed defenses so the extra DC or two is not being impeded at all by the opponent's defenses. The point cost is less important if the item is loot (no CP paid), but it's still annoying if my "mighty sword of lightning" as about as powerful as one or two DCs added to a normal weapon.
 
I suppose the enchantment could also make the sword AP and the electric attack could be AP as well. Now you are effectively "averaging the defenses" while dealing with unclevlad's concern that averaging the defenses becomes an issue if the attacks are unequal.
 
The easy approach, as he notes, is just make it all against one defense - maybe whichever damage is larger is the defense.
 
 

For an NPC, my simplistic answer is "If I got the costing wrong, so what?"  He was going to be invulnerable to falling damage anyway.  I price it out to get a sense of point totals, but if I need another 2 points, he has some xp and if he's got 2 left over, then he's got 2 point less xp or he's a 198 point base instead of 200. 
 
I'm not going to charge an Ice Monster that will  only appear in arctic wastes more for Life Support: Extreme Cold than the PC who is in the Arctic now, the Sahara in the next arc and underwater in Atlantis after that, but I'd worry more about a fair cost for the PC than the Ice Monster NPC.

[Not directed at Duke directly, but at the need for "accurate simulation" to allow me to "suspend my disbelief"]
 
Now let's discuss the long-term effects of being repeatedly bludgeoned into unconsciousness.  Show me a game that models this realistically.

Just snipped the part of a great post I want to comment on.  An Everyman skill of PS: Stuntman would cover renting himself out for film stunts regardless of his immunity to falling damage, so that would not influence my pricing decision. If he wants to be wealthy due to his greater ability to do stunt work, that's an SFX for Wealth.  If the Wealth does nothing/little in game, it should be free/low cost as well.

Wow.  I totally missed that.  Thank you, Hugh.
 
However, I have been ignoring that idea for over forty years now; I trust folks will forgive me for continuing to ignore it.  Crater takes a -4 on his PD "only for falling damage" for precisely the reason you mention:  it's extremely rare to come,up in games.  Even though he is seeking it out (professional stuntman-  now that he understands his power), it is still not significantly useful in any other way: if he gets hit by a bus for _half_ the damage or punched in a fight for _one tenth_ the damage, it's useless.  I stand by the -4.  If he wasnt actively renting himself out to film fall stunts, I might even go to -5.
 
It's just not that useful.  It's like a super-powers version of a minor cantrip.  What does anyone here chsrge for their version of featherfall, anyway?  Consider it to be featherfall with the old +1/4 "Fast" Advantage from the original Fantasy HERO.  Balance that out with a nice "character falls" or "lands prone" or something if you want.
 
Done.
 
Honestly, I had considered that very sort of thing years ago when I came up with the character; I opted for the PD specifically because I wanted the damage effects of the "move through," which a fast levitation did not yield.
 
 
 
 

Because environmental damage is different from combat damage.
 
One is about resistance to instantaneous shocks and the other is about resisting conditions that upset bodily functions over time. If your grill flares up and you're too close, you may get a burn. If you sit in the sauna for 6 hours, you'll be lucky to survive but you won't have any burns. Heat is the root cause of both but there's a difference between the magnitude and intensity of heat in each situation.
 
PD/ED is about the grill, Life Support is about the sauna. The first is general and covers a wide range of SFX, the second is very specialized and tailored to specific SFX. Yes, points spent on PD/ED will be more generally useful but sometimes we want to tell a story where those other points shine. When you're the GM you can tell your players not to spend those points that way because it will never come up. I think as a GM that the player who spent those points should get a chance to shine if only by not being inconvenienced by the setting. If you're going to enforce Limitations, then highlight specialties once in a while also.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

If we look at Life Support versus Defenses, we have already accepted a substantial discount for, in effect, "only versus environmental forms of damage from this SFX".  Setting a price commensurate with the utility is the objective.
 
 
Heralds of Galactus. One of the Futurians lived there.  Pretty sure Green Lanterns have pulled it off. There are not often reasons to go there, of course.
 
 
This depends on the game in question. I don't find it comes up all that often.  Looking to a different game system, we see "feather Fall" as a pretty low-powered spell to prevent falling damage.  As a subset of "physical damage", how common is "falling"?  I'm pretty sure drowning is a risk one must consider, and one which should not be truivially dismissed.  Immunity to drowning isn't very expensive.
 
Would you rather be immune to falling damage or have +20 PD? Which is more likely to have a significant impact in the game.  How about 10 PD?  5 PD?  These are pretty low-cost alternatives that, over the course of a campaign, are probably going to have a lot more benefit than immunity to damage from falling.

Why am I flashing back to the "falling" discussion?  4 points to be immune to arctic weather and another 4 to be immune to Sahara-level heat.  How much to be immune to the cold of space and the heat of a volcano?  Maybe I'll just spend those points on ED instead - I'll get way more benefit over the course of a campaign.  I can play "immune to extreme temperatures man" in a game where the GM applies costs commensurate with the benefits.

There is a fellow at a local farmer's market who runs a Pokemon cards booth.  Not quite RPGs, but another often-denigrated hobby. He has a sign that notes that the game requires players to apply skills such as math and planning, and interact socially with their peers.

Remember when reading comic books would rot your brain? Now, teachers use them to encourage reading skills. My high school English teacher got a lot of disrespect from his peers for stating that he did not care what students read - whether classic literature, comic books or rank pornography, reading contributed to learning.

Then write it properly.  LANGUAGE MATTERS.
 
If it requires BOTH heat and cold, and that's common enough in your opinion to be viable for an NND, then, fine, so be it.  If you write it up as heat OR cold, then all it takes is one.  You're writing up the formal definition here, so you CANNOT use SFX arguments.  You want the SFX to do X?  Write it properly so the rules text...the power definition...matches.  No, I never give SFX preference...or even influence...here.
 
Note that you can also write it up as a compound power...2 1/2d6 NND (LS: heat) + 2 1/2 d6 NND (LS: cold), as Hugh said, or his more complex combination.  Or 1 1/2d6 Heat, 1 1/2 d6 cold, and 2d6 either.  Whatever.  And that works in its own way.

I don't think many characters can see the bullet coming towards them either. If they know they are being attacked, why would their DCV be impaired?
 
An Invisible attack through a focus is likely a sniper's weapon - the user attempts to find a concealed location so that the precise location from which the target is being attacked is difficult to determine.

Why is describing my intended action in combat, in exploration, in trap detection and removal, in infliltration, in research and in virtually every other situation, then allowing my character's skills and abilities to take over as we throw the dice "role playing", but describing my intended actions in a social setting and then allowing my character's skills and abilities to take over as we throw the dice "replacing role playing".
 
My character chooses his targets and his tactics in combat (wisely or foolishly) based on his personality. Ditto for exploration (perhaps he is careful and methodical, or maybe he is impulsive and hasty), trap detection and removal, infiltration, research and social interaction. Role playing means playing a character with goals, objectives, personal beliefs, character strengths and flaws rather than directing a pawn to the (perceived) most tactically advantageous choice in every situation.

Why is describing my intended action in combat, in exploration, in trap detection and removal, in infliltration, in research and in virtually every other situation, then allowing my character's skills and abilities to take over as we throw the dice "role playing", but describing my intended actions in a social setting and then allowing my character's skills and abilities to take over as we throw the dice "replacing role playing".
 
My character chooses his targets and his tactics in combat (wisely or foolishly) based on his personality. Ditto for exploration (perhaps he is careful and methodical, or maybe he is impulsive and hasty), trap detection and removal, infiltration, research and social interaction. Role playing means playing a character with goals, objectives, personal beliefs, character strengths and flaws rather than directing a pawn to the (perceived) most tactically advantageous choice in every situation.