prestidigitator

Very rarely I might say something like, "You can try to use your Climbing as a Complimentary roll, but you might fall if you (badly) fail it." I don't do this often, as Complimentary skills should generally help, not hinder. I reserve it for circumstances where the character is trying to gain the benefit of a Complimentary Skill to do something pretty exceptional, complicated, or when the normal chances of success are minute. I also always warn the player when there is a risk in using a Complimentary Skill in this way; the player should know what (s)he is getting him-/her-self into, and the chances of making things worse. Rolling an 18, however, might have bad results in any case. As for the results of normal skill rolls, I usually have the player tell me how much the roll succeeded or failed by. Usually, if it was marginal the character may not have completely satisfactory results, if it was made by 2-5 it is a complete success, for 6-9 it is an amazing success, and if made by 10 or more the results are truely exceptional. Likewise, if the roll failed by 1-5, it is just a failure, if it failed by 6-9 there might be some detrimental side effects, and if it failed by 10 or more things are bound to go quite wrong (though usually not truely disasterous unless an 18 is rolled)--maybe wrong information, incidental mishappenings, bad luck, etc. I vary this from time to time, based on circumstance and whim, but I don't think the players are ever disappointed by the outcome, especially because I tend to make exceptional success or failure quite dramatic, and sometimes rather humorous.

No kidding. D20 tried to eliminate the 5% failure/success thing by removing it from skill rolls (attacks still use it). I like the 1/216 chance of automatic failure and success that you can use with 3s and 18s in Hero (sometimes I even increase it to 1/54 by including 4s and 17s); much less likely, but still allows for the very rare and exceptional bit of luck.

You are the GM. You can also just rule that the power doesn't work on this particular race/character. Of course, the best thing to do is give J's character story reason not to harm the "gilf," or think of some other plot twist (e.g. A Blood Mage shows up and links the PC's lives together: in order to stay alive, J's character must protect the gilf).

Re: To be honest Definitely! I have had the same experience with my players. You can't just turn them lose with the system and say, "Make a character." If you really want to introduce D&D (or any d20) players to Hero, you have to do a lot of up-front work as the GM. That means creating a bunch of packages so the players can just whip a character together, and probably coming up with a talent/magic/power/whatever system that sits on top of the Hero rules, so the players don't even have to look at the Power/Advantage/Limitation rules until they are ready. The really unfortunate part is that the complexity of the system comes into play during character creation: the very first part. That tends to cause players to get through the "worst" of it, and not want to do any more, when the truth is that game play really isn't any more complex than in most other systems. You might even consider creating a whole slew of pregenerated characters, maybe after asking each player "what kind" of character they would like to play (then help the players tailor the characters to their own liking). As long as you are willing to do the work, though, creating the right packages and guidelines should make character creation as easy as in any other system (if not easier: don't worry about ability points or skill points or feats or class features; each thing you see just has a straight cost).

What I do is add velocity-based DCV to the character's normal DCV if the movement is still combat velocity. I make it mutual, though, so the fast moving character has the same penalties when attacking still targets. I replace the normal DCV only at non-combat velocities (if it is better than 1/2 normal DCV). This might be overly complex, though.

Hmm. Just remember that anything that is affected by Mental Powers should also have the potential for Mental Defense. Security devices/programs/EM shielding anyone?

The Combat Skill Levels, along with Martial Arts and Str, could no more than double the DCs of the base attack (the dagger). Otherwise they could work just fine for this.

While I think that this is generally true, I also think a space suit is pretty darn near full Life Support. It just has Limitations such as OIF and "Life Support does not work when suit is ruptured," which I would guess is probably a -1, since the suit is likely to be in jeopardy any time there is a combat situation. I would say the suit is ruptured by any attack which has a cutting, puncturing, or melting type Special Effect (maybe KAs but not NAs) doing enough Body damage to overcome the suit's defenses. The suit probably has an okay PD but good ED. Other attacks or situations might also result in the suit being ruptured, at the GM's discretion (perhaps "dart" NNDs, etc.). The suit's defenses may even include LS: Immune to Disease, but subject to the above Limitation. After all, some guy in a space suit who walks into a villiage contaminated with all kinds of disease is not going to catch anything unless the suit is removed, punctured, unsealed, etc. At least if we are talking about a "realistic" space suit.

Wow! I have since re-read the rules, FAQs, etc., and see that you are right. Sorry for the mistake. Fancy that! After playing Hero for close to ten years I completely missed this. I guess I had always imposed assumptions based on previous roleplaying experiences (i.e. D&D). I have to say that I do love the independence of unconsciousness and dying. Woooo hoooo! Another plus for Hero!

I haven't seen this from UMA, but I would have to say that I would allow a Maneuver which does both a Block and an attack. I would just base it on a Sweep in which one maneuver is a Block and the other is the attack in question. Since you are presumably paying points for the maneuver, let it count as a Half Move attack (as if the character had Rapid Attack), and impose a penalty to DCV rather than halving it. Sounds balanced to me.

That really is what Continuous does, but remember that using (maintaining) a Power really only takes up time if it requires an attack roll. If you don't want the owner of the attack to be able to do other things while maintaining the attack, I would consider (possibly a less severe) form of Extra Time. If the attacker is partially limitied as to what (s)he can do while maintaining an attack, consider Limitations like Concentrate, Gestures, and/or Incantations.

I would change Must Continue Moving Until Stopped into Beam, change Only To Make Half Moves into "Limited by Terminal Velocity (-1/4)", and forget the +8 Speed. Instead of extra Speed, you could increase the amount of Gliding if you really wanted to, but in any case just deal out the movement Segment-wise as the GM. Incidentally, I wouldn't say the power, as bought, would necessarily eliminate the falling damage. At most, it turns it into only the damage from a 0 Str Move Through (see the FAQ for damage from hitting obstacles). How about just using Teleportation with the Adder/Advantage (I forget which--if it is an Advantage, I would impose a minimum power cost) that overcomes relative movement, and a Trigger for "just before character hits ground/obstacle?" You could probably also throw in some major Limitations because the Teleportation is only usable for falling.

I would be interested, if it is two PCs we are talking about, in who retains control of the combined form. If one of the PCs has control, I might say use some kind of Aid to the primary character's Multiform, with either a Side Effect or a linked Desolidification/Extradimensional Movement (maybe with Mind Link thrown in there). If there is some kind of weird Voltron situation, where each player has control of part of the combined form, then go with the idea of both having Multiform but having to be together. If the players have to come to a consensus over the control of the combined form, then they and your game are probably both screwed. I have no idea what I'd do.

How about just a huge bonus on the Contortionist Skill. Then the character could pull of "Extrordinary" stunts with it.

Same thing. Go read the FAQs on Body, Stun, and Foci, I believe. Maybe look in the Rules Questions Board for similar topics, too. I'm not sure where I saw the applicable question.

But again you make reference to D&D, which is one of the only places I have seen where a weak, weak healing spell can be used (with enough applications) to heal any physical wound, no matter how serious. In that sense D&D healing spells are, IMO, more powerful than spells from more literature, and should have an Advantage such as Continuous.

Looks pretty good to me, except I'm not sure it would require Continuous. As I already stated, I think Pre attacks are already continuous in a sense. I also don't really think it should take Always On if it is bought through a focus. You can always turn the power off just by removing the mask. I don't think there is really a defense, but in a sense the target's max(Pre, Ego) is, because that is what needs to be overcome. I believe there are some related questions in the FAQs and/or Rules Questions Board. You might need GM approval. I would grant it; it is a good idea, makes sense, and not too unbalancing as bought, IMHO. One more Limitation, I think. Something like, "Target must view reflection in mask," which is probably a -1/2. I wouldn't say any more of a Limitation (maybe even only a -1/4; check with the GM), because it is quite likely that any opponent is going to see his/her reflection in it at some point. This Limitation might be your avenue to the limited range, too. As a GM, I would probably rule that targets who are not right next to you should make Per rolls (adjusted for range--and that thay can't automatically fail if they are looking at the character) to notice the reflections.

I think the Cumulative works. It is an imaginative approach, too. Go with it. If you really want the character not to be affected, take Personal Immunity, or make sure he is not a killer. Special Effects and Special Effects. The specific effect is the same every time (at least in term of mechanics): the subject is stricken with fear. That each person sees different faces, or whatever, is just Special Effect, and does not merit either an Advantage or a Limitation. Why not just make it Area of Effect: Cone and let it extend as far as the Active Points make it? Or give it Area of Effect: Single Hex, or give it Area of Effect: Cone and Reduced by Range. I don't see that these are very difficult or compicated options.

I don't think bad. It just has its own place. It completely circumvents any kind of Line of Sight considerations, and can be used to find a specific mind among any number of others, but it requires an effect roll and is countered by Mental Defense. It has its place; it is just different, which is what many people are worried about.

True. This doesn't help much during character creation, but I often limit the amount players can raise their Characteristics during a campaign. For example, in one heroic campaign, I have decided that characters can only gain one point (as in a +1, not one Character Point) in any Characteristic at a time, and must have some play time or game time in between increases. I also encourage my players (and try myself) to just assign Characteristics based on how strong or fast or intelligent they think their character is, rather than looking at meta-game reasons. There is, of course, no way to enforce this. Instead of tables, it would be simpler and easier to change the equations slightly. OCV=(Dex-2)/3 and DCV=(Dex-1)/3 could match your example for Dex. I wouldn't want all of the Characteristics rolls to be calculated differently from each other, though. Changing some existing equations, or adding one or two new ones (difference between OCV and DCV) isn't bad, but adding five or six new equations? Nah! It would also start to infringe upon the consistency of how Characteristics work mechanic-wise; right now Characteristics are all treated kinda sorta the same.

True. That makes it a little easier to live with, but I still like the consistency of having the correct Advantages and Limitations on the power, if it is truely bought as a modified Healing. So instead of an invisible Advantage and automatic Limitation (or just less base points), why not make it explicit? I don't think this is a silly limitation. I just think there should be a standard way to get around it (like we seem to agree Cumulative should do). I actually really like the normal 5ed Healing rules for heroic fantasy games. Otherwise, any form of Healing is just way too powerful; might as well forget the normal healing process altogether. In 4th edition, it was just too hard to simulate all of that fantasy literature in which a wound was just "beyond the ability of the healer." There aren't many novels I have read that haven't brought up this kind of limitation (the obvious exception being those which are written based on such a roleplaying system--like D&D-based novels).

...or bandaging themselves, huh? I'll have to re-read the standard rules on this, and think about it a lot for my games.

Alternately, buy the attacks (or part of them--some of the damage, linked Drains, etc.) with Limitations like Only Works on Vampires/Werewolves. I haven't seen the movie, but if these are the main actors in the game, these Limitations wouldn't be worth that much of a break (-1/4 to -1/2?).

LOL. Yep. But still with a stupid leveling and class system, and without Powers or generic Character Points. What's the point, other than a lot of source material being published for this still backwards system? That's why I am working on creating simple and fast conversion rules.

I believe Always On would also require Persistent or Uncontrolled. Presence attacks are arguably continuous as is (someone you freak out is going to still be affected by the experience the next Phase).