Hugh Neilson

I think extradimensional space is an easy approach, provided you're comfortable with APG content.
 
Given the space is, by nature, extradimensional, I see no need for Transdimensional.
 
The important thing is that you get the desired results, and this seems to do the trick (even if a bit of judgment is required around the edges to fill in "GM call" aspects).
 
Many of us (myself more so than most) get wrapped up in the build details.  Getting the desired effect and feel is what's really important, especially as it looks like this will be a magic item for which character points aren't paid anyway. I can't imagine the choice of mechanics used to get the effect you're looking for having much detrimental impact on a game, although it's handy if you want to replicate the effect later (e.g. a player wants a spell with a similar effect).

I recall the Traveller system being pretty lethal, but we never got into Traveller (or any Sci Fi games, really).

I'll share

Just saw Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom and can't understand the negative press. Was it Oscar quality acting and writing? No. Did it have good action, a cohesive plot and characters with understandable motivations? Yes, to all three.
 
The worst thing I can say about this movie is that it redoes the plotline of the first with Orm in Mera's role and sibling rivalry instead of romantic tension. But it does so many good things to counteract that. It only teases a long fight scene against run of the mill thugs, The things they do fight are credible threats either in numbers or power, the humor is kept in check and doesn't seem forced, and the evil masterplan is over the top only in its timescale.
 
Best of all, the characters remain consistent in personality and in powers. Black Manta is given a powerup through Faustian bargain, but remains true to his vendetta against Arthur without slipping into melodramatic villainy. Orm has plenty of reasons to hate Arthur from his perspective but does still act for Atlantis" benefit as he sees it and comes to realize that he doesn't really know Arthur. Arthur realizes that he's a flawed king, but he keeps on plugging away as best he can. The rest of the cast is used fairly well and not overly distracting in any way.
 
Is it the best superhero movie out there? No, but it's a very solid entry in the genre an if DC had more like it, they wouldn't be in such a state. It's easily as good as any GotG movie and very similar with a more serious tone. Solid 7.5 out of 10 from me.

Back in high school and early university, we played a lot of three games - Champions, D&D and Call of Cthulhu.
 
One observation that came from those days was that character creation was inversely proportional to lethality.  A Champions character was a lot of work to create, but the system made them very tough to kill, rather than KO.  D&D was quicker, and character death was also a more significant possibility.  Cal of Cthulhu? Characters had to be quick to create as you'd be making a lot of them.  As I recall, it was the original Shadows of Yog-Sothoth that opened with the comment that the characters should be fairly experienced - no more than half should be brand-new.

Someone who values the storage space and is not deeply analyzing the benefits and drawbacks from the perspective of a paranoid murderhobo?
 
Why would anyone design a metal contraption powered by flammable substances spewing out noxious fumes so that they can travel at great speeds and potentially end their lives should there be a malfunction, inclement weather or a slight driver error (whether by the person driving this one or someone driving a different one)?  Historians and archaeologists believe that this reflected the devout religion of Ah-Toe, a deity of speed who demanded such sacrifices from his faithful.

Back in high school and early university, we played a lot of three games - Champions, D&D and Call of Cthulhu.
 
One observation that came from those days was that character creation was inversely proportional to lethality.  A Champions character was a lot of work to create, but the system made them very tough to kill, rather than KO.  D&D was quicker, and character death was also a more significant possibility.  Cal of Cthulhu? Characters had to be quick to create as you'd be making a lot of them.  As I recall, it was the original Shadows of Yog-Sothoth that opened with the comment that the characters should be fairly experienced - no more than half should be brand-new.

Someone who values the storage space and is not deeply analyzing the benefits and drawbacks from the perspective of a paranoid murderhobo?
 
Why would anyone design a metal contraption powered by flammable substances spewing out noxious fumes so that they can travel at great speeds and potentially end their lives should there be a malfunction, inclement weather or a slight driver error (whether by the person driving this one or someone driving a different one)?  Historians and archaeologists believe that this reflected the devout religion of Ah-Toe, a deity of speed who demanded such sacrifices from his faithful.

Someone who values the storage space and is not deeply analyzing the benefits and drawbacks from the perspective of a paranoid murderhobo?
 
Why would anyone design a metal contraption powered by flammable substances spewing out noxious fumes so that they can travel at great speeds and potentially end their lives should there be a malfunction, inclement weather or a slight driver error (whether by the person driving this one or someone driving a different one)?  Historians and archaeologists believe that this reflected the devout religion of Ah-Toe, a deity of speed who demanded such sacrifices from his faithful.

One other thing, while it is nice to be able to always know how to write up any item in your game, always remember that many times it is not needed. For many magic items that are not combat related, just stating what they do is perfectly okay. The truly only worth of knowing their exact point value is so that you know the exact point value of your player characters including any items they carry.
 
My true point is, "Don't let anything like this cause you stress and make it harder to enjoy your game."

I think since 5e, Healing has been similar to Aid and Drain - add up the dice and that is how many CP it Heals ("simplified Healing" rolled like normal damage and healing both STUN and BOD remains an option; 10 points per 1d6).

I don't think there was a conscious decision to say "you can't put Does Knockback on Healing" so much as an assumption that one would not want non-attack powers to do knockback.  6e includes a discussion of "does knockback" on attacks with no effect dice (such as Darkness), so I don't believe the intention was to limit possible applications. That discussion suggests 1d6 per 5 AP to add up BOD for Knockback.  Seems like one could just as easily use 1 BOD per 5 points (a form of Standard Effect).  As discussed above, adding up the BOD healed works fairly well (number on the dice, halved as BOD is "defensive" in 6e).
 
 
Does that mean that the character automatically knows that the rifle will fail, so no point using an action to fire it? Does the rifle have an indicator that turns red if it won't work due to the target's armor or an ambient energy field?  Or does the energy beam simply fail to hit (or even to manifest) when the character takes careful aim and pulls the trigger? The NND will clearly have no effect if it targets someone with the defense, as that is the nature of an NND.
 
 
Deduct your END suggests that the power can be attempted, and fails - fair enough.
 
If the Knockback fails to affect targets who are not healed, however, then this construct is 100% useless, as it cannot Heal the Undead. Using your model of a campaign ground rule, are you imposing the requirement that Holy spells of Healing cannot generate their Healing magic at all if the target is not wounded?

I may have missed something, but I have not seen anything that gave any indication that the intention was that all healing caused knockback.  I did a quick search and could not find anything from the OP stating that this is how they wanted their world to work.  I did see in the original post where they wanted to build a spell that healed their allies and knocked back undead.  If they do want this to become a standard feature of their world then using a disadvantage is the right way to go.  If on the other hand, they are just looking for this particular spell to function that way a disadvantage is the wrong way to do it.

S&S doesn’t absolutely require human fighterism. Elric is squarely S&S and a powerful warlock in his own right. Gray Mouser is a former wizard’s apprentice who still remembers some of his training. It’s more the style of magic that sets S&S apart—ritual and summoning, rather than balls of fire. 
 
Unfortunately that’s where 5e D&D really falls apart for S&S. You could easily run a game of rogues, fighters, and barbarians, but the only magic D&D really supports is high fantasy video game magic. I’m sure it’s not impossible, but it’d be hard enough to inspire me to look at other game systems. 
 

It doesn't really have to do with what's more effective or not, but rather that powers are blank templates, basic use of an ability, which we use modifiers to specify.  In this case telepathy/mind control/what have you is the ability to use your mind to connect to or manipulate other minds.  Which other minds you define with modifiers; if you cannot contact all minds, then that's a limitation.  Classes of minds is not just a needless complication added in the most recent addition, but it violates the broad simplicity of powers that Hero has always been defined around.  Powers are designed based on their effect, not their target.

Assuming the ability to accurately time travel, you place it in a safety deposit box and move it every 5 - 10 years.

In the Nerd Tradition of applying logic to fantastical constructs, if jumping forward ages the wine 100 years, won't you also age 100 years (and does the reverse hold true, in which case you would not be able to go back far enough to obtain these items)?

For the specific build I would Link the powers, but it does permit the build itself to focus more on knockback or more on healing. Higher AP (including two linked powers) comes with a higher skill roll penalty, but that is manageable by using -1/4 to reduce the roll by 1 per 20 AP rather than 10.
 
 
 
In my view, Hero is not "a game".  It is a system used to design games. When we require the players to create their abilities using the tome of mechanics, they are being asked to be game designers, not just players or even GMs. It would be quite possible to build spells with the full mechanics but publish a game where those mechanics are largely hidden. We might, for example, see Healing Burst as a spell in such a game described as 2d6 BOD Healing, 4 meter radius centered on caster, does 2  meter knockback (away from the caster) to all undead or demons instead of healing them.  COST X Points; SKILL ROLL: -Y; END: Z.
 
We could even add that +1d6 Healing and +2 meters Knockback costs +A Points; further -B Skill Roll; further END C, and present the skill roll and END in "per xd6".
 
The players need never see the complex build behind the scenes.  They know that the base power will heal 1 BOD per 2 points rolled on their 2d6, and blast any Undead or Demons back 2 meters (unless they are mysteriously resistant - perhaps knockback resistance). That is what they need to play a spellcaster with this spell in-game.
 
This adjusts character design and play to be similar to other games where the design of the characters' abilities is not shared with the players or the GM. While surprising to many Hero fans, lots of players just want to play the game, and do not want to learn the detailed game design mechanics that create their characters' abilities.  It is not wrongbadfun to want to play a game, not design one.

I forgot about Unified Power - good call!
 
 
There's a bit of comfort building an unusual ability multiple ways and getting similar costs.  Whichever choice is made is at least in the ballpark.
 
 
I have always allowed a form of "standard effect" that two combined/linked/connected powers use the same rolls. That speeds up gameplay nicely.
 
Actually, another easy simplifier for this power would be putting the Knockback element on Standard Effect.  If it's a Linked Blast (say 4d6, double knockback), Standard Effect is 8 on the Knockback Dice, so just subtract 2d6 from that 8 (or even apply a standard 7 or 8 and the Undead are always pushed back 2 meters or just knocked down).  The Knockback now becomes very easy to present as just an add-on to the Healing.
 
I think that "player's standpoint" element is key.  Some players don't care to mine the build intricacies - they don't need to see two powers to run the character. If they are happy with someone else digging through the build complexities, and the player and GM share a common view of how the construct works in gameplay, then only put the necessities on the character sheet.  The chain of advantages and limitations (including limitations on an advantage) will also look complex. In d20, we would just write "Healing Blast" and maybe a bit of how it works.  A Hero "for play" character sheet would go a long way to reducing perceived complexity at the gaming table.
 

The reason we ask whether HERO is too complicated is because we have more detail to argue about.  I would bet @Duke Bushido would be more than happy delivering this power in his 2ns Edition game. 
 
As players we have pushed the game designers to give us more and more "official" rule options.  Those options already existed but we think, if they are written in a rule book, we can use them without too much thought or discussion, just punch the numbers in. We then wanted more guidance on those options, it is no wonder the core rulebook got so big.
 
I don't think HERO is any more complicated, I worry we make it too complicated.  We begin to obsess over the detail and fret more about getting the numbers right than getting the feel right and delivering a decent game.
 
There is something about us that loves the detail and makes us question the minds of other folk that bounce off this beautifully detailed system that "can do anything" but in the process we insist on showing all the detail, ensuring that every micro-point is audited and processed.
 
I love the availability of the derail, I appreciate others who know it far better than me, pointing out when I stumble and permit things that could be exploited in unanticipated ways.
 
What I appreciate most however, is not a complex build but an elegant one, one that achieves a game effect that would awesome to see in play, that HERO can put together from its parts that would be a total black box everywhere else.
 
The detail for me is about helping adjudicate the effect in game, being able to explain to the player how this would work and how it might be changed to deliver different game outcomes.
 
It is not the system, it is us that gets too complicated.
 
Doc

2d6 Healing will average 7, which is 3(.5) BOD.  The Knockback should likely be based on "count normal BOD".  The BOD healed is comparable to a 4d6 Blast, which would be reasonable (base of 4 DC).  Allowing it on the normal (average 7) roll is a much greater advantage.
 
As to the "+/- 0", I think they are reasonable in this case.  Yes, it prevents the Knockback affecting your teammates.  It also prevents it affecting the guards on the wall of the castle we want to storm, the bandits sniping from the trees and the charging bear.  ("But you'd have to heal them" is a big fat "so what?" at the start of combat.

To my mind, STUN Only was set as a +1/4 advantage offset by -1/4 No Knockback because it will not cause permanent injury (nice in Supers) or damage loot (nice in Fantasy, but the decision was driven by Supers).
 
 
I believe that in 5e it will heal 14 CP of BOD, so 7 BOD and in 6e it will heal 14 CP, halved because BOD is a defensive ability in 6e.
 
 
 
Given that this is +/-0,. I would allow it as "knocks back, but does not heal, Undead".  Recall that Doc is seeking to make the ability work, not to impose roadblocks.

To my mind, STUN Only was set as a +1/4 advantage offset by -1/4 No Knockback because it will not cause permanent injury (nice in Supers) or damage loot (nice in Fantasy, but the decision was driven by Supers).
 
 
I believe that in 5e it will heal 14 CP of BOD, so 7 BOD and in 6e it will heal 14 CP, halved because BOD is a defensive ability in 6e.
 
 
 
Given that this is +/-0,. I would allow it as "knocks back, but does not heal, Undead".  Recall that Doc is seeking to make the ability work, not to impose roadblocks.

Transitioning things between media always carries issues that "some things" don't work as well.  Weekly TV is much better at supporting an ensemble cast than a movie franchise.  The printed page and the screen support different elements (Supers can keep those full-face masks on; actors need to convey facial expressions - plus we did not pay for a Big Name to hide their faces constantly).
 
The first example I always think of is "splitting the party".  Having each member of the team go off to do something different works great in print and on screen. Not so much when the GM and 1 player at a time are playing and the rest of the group is just watching.
 
 
While there needs to be some chance of losing in a game, there's not much drama or tension in a book, comic, TV show or movie if there is no chance of the protagonist losing either.  Especially in serialized fiction, where we pretty much know that the Hero will survive and likely come out on top, efforts to create suspense over the success or failure take a lot of work.
 
When we narrowly define "success" and "failure", it becomes that much harder.  Death is not the only way to lose.  Combat is not the only resolution to conflicts.
 
If the expectation of the game is that the heroes will largely resolve conflicts in combat - the combat encounters will define success and failure, we can't have Unhittable Flash and Unhurtable Superman.
 
But if their opponent is Lex Luthor, non-combat corporate kingpin investing massive resources in an aura of legitimacy and seeking the Presidency, Flash can't speed him away and Supes can't punch him out of office. 
 
Well, they COULD, I suppose. Either could knock him out, or even snuff out his life, with no effort at all.  But that would not be a "win" in the game, because "beat Luthor in combat" is not the "victory condition", to coin a phrase.
 
If we are going to run a game of Silver Age Supers, so powerful that no opponent can hope to prevail in combat, then we need to design our game around challenges that are not resolved by combat. Flipping that around, if we are expecting to run a game where the primary source of tension and drama is conflict resolution by combat, then the PCs cannot be Silver Age Supers for whom combat results are a foregone conclusion.

Transitioning things between media always carries issues that "some things" don't work as well.  Weekly TV is much better at supporting an ensemble cast than a movie franchise.  The printed page and the screen support different elements (Supers can keep those full-face masks on; actors need to convey facial expressions - plus we did not pay for a Big Name to hide their faces constantly).
 
The first example I always think of is "splitting the party".  Having each member of the team go off to do something different works great in print and on screen. Not so much when the GM and 1 player at a time are playing and the rest of the group is just watching.
 
 
While there needs to be some chance of losing in a game, there's not much drama or tension in a book, comic, TV show or movie if there is no chance of the protagonist losing either.  Especially in serialized fiction, where we pretty much know that the Hero will survive and likely come out on top, efforts to create suspense over the success or failure take a lot of work.
 
When we narrowly define "success" and "failure", it becomes that much harder.  Death is not the only way to lose.  Combat is not the only resolution to conflicts.
 
If the expectation of the game is that the heroes will largely resolve conflicts in combat - the combat encounters will define success and failure, we can't have Unhittable Flash and Unhurtable Superman.
 
But if their opponent is Lex Luthor, non-combat corporate kingpin investing massive resources in an aura of legitimacy and seeking the Presidency, Flash can't speed him away and Supes can't punch him out of office. 
 
Well, they COULD, I suppose. Either could knock him out, or even snuff out his life, with no effort at all.  But that would not be a "win" in the game, because "beat Luthor in combat" is not the "victory condition", to coin a phrase.
 
If we are going to run a game of Silver Age Supers, so powerful that no opponent can hope to prevail in combat, then we need to design our game around challenges that are not resolved by combat. Flipping that around, if we are expecting to run a game where the primary source of tension and drama is conflict resolution by combat, then the PCs cannot be Silver Age Supers for whom combat results are a foregone conclusion.

Transitioning things between media always carries issues that "some things" don't work as well.  Weekly TV is much better at supporting an ensemble cast than a movie franchise.  The printed page and the screen support different elements (Supers can keep those full-face masks on; actors need to convey facial expressions - plus we did not pay for a Big Name to hide their faces constantly).
 
The first example I always think of is "splitting the party".  Having each member of the team go off to do something different works great in print and on screen. Not so much when the GM and 1 player at a time are playing and the rest of the group is just watching.
 
 
While there needs to be some chance of losing in a game, there's not much drama or tension in a book, comic, TV show or movie if there is no chance of the protagonist losing either.  Especially in serialized fiction, where we pretty much know that the Hero will survive and likely come out on top, efforts to create suspense over the success or failure take a lot of work.
 
When we narrowly define "success" and "failure", it becomes that much harder.  Death is not the only way to lose.  Combat is not the only resolution to conflicts.
 
If the expectation of the game is that the heroes will largely resolve conflicts in combat - the combat encounters will define success and failure, we can't have Unhittable Flash and Unhurtable Superman.
 
But if their opponent is Lex Luthor, non-combat corporate kingpin investing massive resources in an aura of legitimacy and seeking the Presidency, Flash can't speed him away and Supes can't punch him out of office. 
 
Well, they COULD, I suppose. Either could knock him out, or even snuff out his life, with no effort at all.  But that would not be a "win" in the game, because "beat Luthor in combat" is not the "victory condition", to coin a phrase.
 
If we are going to run a game of Silver Age Supers, so powerful that no opponent can hope to prevail in combat, then we need to design our game around challenges that are not resolved by combat. Flipping that around, if we are expecting to run a game where the primary source of tension and drama is conflict resolution by combat, then the PCs cannot be Silver Age Supers for whom combat results are a foregone conclusion.