prestidigitator

I have had plenty of brand new players who came up with amazing character concepts. This may in part be because they don't know the system, and haven't been influenced by previous roleplaying stereotypes. Rewarding good concepts isn't against the new guy. Now, what is true is that the new guy probably won't know about the mechanics, like Frameworks. That's why you help them build their characters (at least a bit), and suggest things like Elemental Controls to them (and you can suggest them only when you feel they are merited, instead of having to turn down the point-mongering of an experienced power-gamer). By the way, I think this argument is similar to: "I don't give experience for good roleplaying. After all, players who are new to the game might have trouble getting into character, so it wouldn't be fair." Bull. Maybe you reward the new players a little quicker for a bright idea or good roleplaying when they have been having difficulty in this area, but it is no reason to discourage the good, experienced, well intentioned roleplayers you have from keeping up the good job. Well cool. I think we have just learned that you may never allow Elemental Controls when you GM. Whatever. I don't think you are convincing anyone else not to use them. Certainly not me. You will probably also be limiting yourself rather harshly if you decide not to play in a campaign run by a GM who likes ECs.

Re: Magic Weapon Rune Tattoos Well, I would actually make Requires End Only to Activate a +1/4 Advantage, since HKA usually costs End. HKA is also normally visible, so this would not be a Limitation. I would, however, also give the power a Focus Limitation if the sword can be knocked out of the character's hand, etc. I think your Side Effects are a little lenient. Isn't the minimum Side Effect 30 active points? That's at least 3d6 (NND) in my book.

Are these heroic characters we are talking about, or normals? Let them buy over their maxima. It's double cost. That's harsh enough. I'd certianly rather have an Overall Skill Level for the points it would cost me to buy +5 Str. My small racial packages include Shrinking with appropriate modifiers, along with the corresponding Disadvantages and stat (including maxima) decreases. Your sprite, who has approximately 1/64th normal mass, would actually start at -20 Str, with a maximum of -10, in my book. Think your player will want to spend enough points to pick up a toothpick and do more than 1/2 DC of damage (at least 40 points)? I would say that's worth the Disadvantage points (I would probably make the -30 Str count toward the maximum points from Disadvantages). By the way, let your players choose to play an ogre if they want a high Str. Just put in appropriate Disadvantages which they have to take. Let's see that ogre with an extreme Distinctive Features and some Social and Physical Limitiations to boot walk into a bar and crush a bar stool. How do you think the town's inhabitants will react? If he gets mad and jams the bartender's head through the wall, let's see the PC deal with the torch-wielding mob that was about ready to form anyway....

Disables them at the same time? Then this becomes really easy. Just define an attack that works Only Against Robots (you will have to decide how much of a disadvantage this is, based on the frequency of robots; if they are very common, it may even be a -0). Now you can attack everyone with it, and anyone who is affected is a robot (this use, in itself, might make the above Limitation a -0). Free detect.

I like the regular Two-Weapon Fighting rules. Come to think of it, in this case I probably would allow the second attack (only) in the Sweep if the first missed, though. I will still give an off-hand penalty if the primary weapon is not used in the attack; two-weapon fighting really is just that: you are using both weapon synchronously. I would say the off-hand penalty is probably offset with this style based on the fact that you are really making both attacks at once (two weapons), and that is quite a bit harder to dodge than one weapon coming at you.

I believe the extra DCs from Martial Arts add to all of your Martial Arts maneuvers. Who says I can't define a Martial Arts style that uses ranged weapons? Shuriken jump to mind. I think it would be completely valid to create an archer who used Martial Arts with his bow: the strikes all make sense; he might be able to block with his buckler, or his bow if opponents get too close; he could sweep legs with his bow (Legsweep), or fire arrows beneath running feet (Martial Throw: 0 Str+maneuver bonus anyone?); he could pin an opponent's clothes to a wall (Martial Grab: 0 Str+maneuver bonus). Likewise, why not allow a Martial Arts form for psionic characters, that applies to OECV, DECV and perhaps Ego rather than Str? Perhaps a mental "grab" could be performed by any mentalist who has an offensive power, and the grabbed character could not make any mental attacks until (s)he escaped. A mental "throw" might leave the defender at half ECV until (s)he took a moment to mentally "stand up". Eh. This is just brainstorming. And maybe these forms should be bought seperately, rather than just adding on different Weapon Styles. Anyway, the Martial Arts add to all attacks at the same time. They also add double what the Combat Skill Levels would to normal attacks. The Combat Skill Levels add to only one attack at a time, even though they have a somewhat broader use. By the way, I would have to say adding to non-damaging or mental attacks is probably very up to the GM. I would probably have a bit of difficulty with someone using their normal Combat Skill Levels to add to their Mind Control effect roll, even if they are overall levels. Maybe overall (regular) Skill Levels could do that (since they apply to all skills including mental ones, etc., as well as just combat), but they cost 10 points anyway. Combat Skill Levels bought specifically for, e.g., mental combat would probably be an altogether different matter.

Remember that the duplicates from Duplication are dead if they die. This is like buying an Independant power: you can lose it forever. That is more like a number slavishly loyal Followers you can hide in your back pocket than a true power.

I would probably think of this as an: Area of Effect: 2x (original active points)/10, Non-Selective (+1)I think Non-Selective subtracts 1/4 from the cost of the Advantage, anyway. I don't have the book at the moment. My reasoning is as follows: With an Any Area, you can catch a number of adjacent hexes. This is equivalent to spreading your EB area-wise. With Non-Selective, you have to make an attack roll against all targets, just like with a spread EB. If you were to take double your origianl EB, and use the extra dice to spread, you would be able to hit (original active points)/5 hexes, which is the same as the number of hexes in the Area of Effect. Now, let's consider the differences between the Non-Selective Any Area and the extra dice: The Area of Effect hits multiple targets in the same hex (although from the wording in the book, I am not sure the spread EB does not). The extra cost for the Area of Effect cannot be used to increase the damage to a single target. The Any Area must be shaped in some regular fasion (GM might well let you ignore this). With the Area of Effect you have to make an attack roll just to place the area (on top of hitting each target). This means the Area of Effect is actually more limited than the extra dice, and should be no more expensive. I am currently having a hard time justifying any value to the Only to Spread Limitation. Can anyone argue against this? It is being a real headache for me.

Rethink Elemental Control It looks interesting. However, your system for Elemental Control slots need to be re-thought. It works perfectly if all powers are the same cost, or if they have a small spread. Consider the following example, though. I want a Framework which is essentially just an Elemental Control. I want to put 5 powers in it. One of these powers has 50 active points, and four of them have 100 active points. Using the standard Elemental Control Framework, the pool itself can be a maximum of 25 points (half the active points of the smallest power). This gives a total cost of 25+25+4*75=350 points. Using your Framework (with only Elemental Slots), I can buy it for 100+10+4*30=230 points. Quite a rebate! That's even less than if I bought only the four big powers in an Elemental Control by themselves (100+4*37=248)! The problem is that your method essentially uses the average cost of the powers, which I can bring down significantly by adding in a small power. You might, instead, require that each Elemental Slot be at least the size of your Core, and make each slot cost AP-Core/2. This fits the standard Elemental Control Framework more closely. Now what I do with Elemental Control Frameworks is I forget the minimum size of a power which fits in them, but I only allow the active points in the power to be doubled, at most, by the pool. That means the above example could be built with an Elemental Control of 50 points, but the 50 point power will now still cost 25 points (rather than being free). It would then cost 50+25+4*50=275. This is less than standard, but it is built mostly on the standard rules, and costs more than than an EC with the four big powers (50+4*50=250). Why should large powers get a discount, but not small ones? If you wanted to add this option to your Unified Framework, but use more standard Elemental Control costs (as I suggested above), you could make eash Elemental Slot cost AP-min(AP/2, Core/2).

I don't think that 8 points is too much at all. Consider Martial Arts. Provided your Martial Arts applies to all of your attacks (unarmed, 1 point per "weapon style", and you have it), you can add 1 DC to all non-killing attacks for 4 points, and half of that to all killing attacks (read: 8 points per additional DC for killing attacks). There's nothing in there about the Martial Arts DCs applying to one attack at a time. The limited Skill Level is quite balanced. Or just use the Martial Arts. Remember: Str, Skill Levels, and Martial Arts can never increase any attack to more than double base damage anyway.

That is another reason this is purely a House Rule. Normally, Adjustment Powers cannot buy Cumulative; they are cumulative already. However, I think it is a reasonable advantage to apply to make the power even more cumulative (bypassing the maximum effect). And yes: with a stop sign. Hmm. Well, if too many points were involved, I'd just call decreased characteristics Disadvantages (I've seen this done plenty in examples). Are you allowed 1000 points of Disadvantages in your game? I trust my players not to try to cheese, for the most part. I also look over all characters a bit, and use common sense. That being said, I guess everything is on a case-by-case basis. Yes. Frameworks happen to be the place where I have had the most trouble, though, so I spell it out quite explicitely, and players think seriously about if and what Frameworks they will buy (and how to prepare them pre-game).

I disagree. Is there anything that says you can't do a Move-By with an attack that doesn't add Str to damage? I just wouldn't give an increase from velocity, either. That doesn't mean you can't still do a Move-By to carry off multiple attacks on opponents as you go by. How about EB, No Range? Then it may even not be a Desolidification. Flight with a Limitation of Must End on Level Surface at 0 Velocity? Maybe even Running with Must End WIth 0 Velocity?

Definitely necessary. You would at least get knocked down by it if you didn't buy Personal Immunity. I would probably ask you to determine where the power originates. The frontal lobe? Oh you are knocked backward, then. Do you really want the power to do Body? Why Body, but not Stun? If no Body, I would probably give the power something like Only to do Knockback (-2) rather than Does No STUN. I don't know if it merits all of a -2, but it is a pretty hefty disadvantage.

I would personally consider a key just Special Effects. I think the vehicle itself goes more along the lines of a Focus. What I mean is, the character shouldn't lose it permenently without getting reimbursed (unless it is Independant), no character who hasn't spent some points toward it should get the permenant use of it, and the character can define reasonable rules about who else can use it. For example, the character could decide that only (s)he can use it because it has a retinal scanner. The benefit of this would be that the vehicle can't be stolen very easily (might take Security Systems or something). The drawback is that a teammate cannot be loaned the vehicle, or maybe even drive it. How about a key? Gina: "Oops! Torro fell in the lake and can't swim, but I can't use his boat to go save him because the key is in his pocket." Paul: "Don't worry. He gave me a copy." Daze: "I have one too. Oops! Maybe not. Argh! Snake must have taken it. Where is the boat, anyway?" A vehicle which anyone can use has similar benefits/drawbacks. It can be freely used when there is need, but can also be stolen without breaking a sweat.

RIght on man! Keep faith in those players! If you see something questionable, ask them why they did it, and watch how they play it in game. Intention is a major part of the experience. Loosen up your system to the degree that the intentions deserve. If it turns out some player is trying to cheese points, limit them more heavily in how they construct things, or give them a harder time of it in play. Otherwise, don't stress so much! Just do what makes sense. I believe that there are two ways you have go about things: Decide how you would like things to work in game, and apply Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc. to make it happen. Look at how something is constructed in terms of Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc., and decide how they work in game. Players have to do the former. GMs have to do both, and their conclusions may not necessarily match the expectations that the players had when creating their characters/powers. Keeping in mind the faith I have in my players, I tend to give them a lot of leeway in how they create their characters (though this does not mean I will not correct something which really does not go along with the intent of the system--like recreating an existing Power). Let them use their imaginations! That's the fun of the system, not its shortcoming. There may be two equally valid ways of doing something, so explore the ramifications of the one the player chose. If my conclusions do not match the expectations of a player when they create a power, or I think things are imbalanced (in terms of points or otherwise), I will change the way things work in-game. If the player doesn't like how their powers work based on my ruling, I will allow (and help) them to reconstruct their characters in a way that does match their expectations. This may cost more points, or it may cost less. It may be too expensive for the character, so they might have to work up to it through experience (and creative roleplaying if they want to get bonus experience for this purpose). If player A finds a cheap way to do things, and it is just as valid as player B's more expensive way, let player B know (s)he could be doing it cheaper ("You mean that my power isn't limited, so for a slightly limited Multipower, I could also have a Damage Shield for about the same price? Cool. Let's do it!"). Hero may be a beautiful system, have a lot built into it, and take care of a lot of the mechanics for you, but that doesn't change the part that makes it one of the greatest experiences in the world: the element of human judgement and human interaction. We're not playing Warhammer here.

If you are so frustrated over this, just make Per a Bacground Skill (base 11-) instead of an Intellect skill.

I agree completely. By the way, if you really want the feel of the d20 system, you should throw out the Speed Characteristic, and instead use Penalty Skill Levels to decrease the penalty from the Sweep Maneuver.... I don't really like this myself, but I have been dealing with a little too much d20 lately, and know very well the frustration of not being able to move around any faster as an Epic level Fighter!

I believe the Disadvantage lies in how you are able to buy the Characteristics. For example, I probably wouldn't allow someone to buy Characteristics as a power (particularly in a superheroic game) unless it had Limitations like Focus, Extra End (or Costs End), Continuing Charges, etc. I would probably also allow Characteristics bought as powers to be Dispelled, even though Characteristics are normally immune to this (because it's really a Power in this case...). I don't think there's much arguing with it (except with House Rules); FREd says explicitly (although I don't have it, so I can't site page and section) that Adjustment Powers and Characteristics bought as Powers do not pay double for points over normal maxima. For that matter, I know this has been the case since at least 4th edition. It makes sense to me, too, because if I am creating a spell which doubles a character's Str (Aid: 2d6 Str, Standard Effect; or maybe +5 Str, OAF, Extra End), I don't want to have to worry about whether any particular character I am casting it upon (or who learns the spell) has bought their Str up to the maximum or not.... You could probably debate the validity of Normal Characteristic Maxima as a Disadvantage for characters who don't want high stats anyway. So what do you do? Force anyone who wants to take the Disadvantage to buy at least one Characteristic over the maximum imposed by the Disadvantage? I think this is why the Disadvantage is worth few points; it does flesh out the character, in that you get an idea of the kind of powers/disadvantages/concepts upon which (s)he is built, but the Disadvantage isn't worth as much as it should be if it were fully limiting the character. For example, if you add up the difference (half the costs of buying down the Chars the appropriate amount, and the full price for buying the maxima up) between normal and 65+, the Disadvantage is not worth nearly this much....

I actually worked a bit on a heroic fantasy magic system this weekend, and decided that transforming something into a "magical item" should be a Spiritual Transform. After all, the physical form (Body) isn't really changing, and there is certainly nothing related to Mind going on. FREd says objects usually don't have Spirit (for the purpose of Transform), so I decided that magically enhancing an item should be a Major Spiritual Transform. I suppose you could argue that this should be a Summon instead, but I like the whole Transform mechanics for this: a random period of time based on how well the damage is rolled, heals back eventually if not completed, really more of a change to existing materials based on components and spells cast during the process, etc.

True. I probably wouldn't use the random delay most of the time in a superheroic game. There's only so much realism I want for superheros anyway.

I would give him a VPP which at least has some kind of a Focus Limitation on all its Powers. I mean, come on: there isn't a single situation that comes up where Batman can't whip something out of his...er...utility belt, or his vehicle, to help him. If that isn't some kind of VPP, then I don't know what is. Come to think of it, how many gadgets have you seen Batman using at the same time? Maybe two or three? Everything else is just pure Dex, Int, Pre, Perks, Skills, and Skill Levels, baby!

A two slot Multipower with nothing but a tiny Limitation on switching between the slots? No other Powers or Limitations or anything? No, I probably would not allow this in most circumstances. I believe you are arguing that any Multipower should cost more than a single power. This shows that the Limitation we are talking about does not make a Multipower less expensive than a power if there are at least 3 Powers in the Framework, or... ...if there are more realistic powers in the Framework. Example: 10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/40 real] Multipower: 50 pt reserve, 1/2 Phase to Switch Powers (-1/4) u 10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/4 real] u 3d6+1 RKA, Only on Humanoids (-1/4) [50 active/4 real] Total cost: 48 The Multipower certainly costs more than the single power. Your original example is an extremely degenerate case. Base things on the majority of cases, and deal with the rare exceptions as they come up. Otherwise you will be pulling your hair out way before you ever touch any dice; there would be far too much to worry about. Anyone could come up with some example to tell you why your justification for a cost is wrong.

I think this is best dealt with using House Rules. For example, I allow most magic in my fantasy campaign to far exceed the Active Point limit on a VPP, because otherwise a mage would have to be vastly powerful in order to cast a decent spell. I also require spells to be pretty heavily limited, and pre-approved by me before they can be "memorized," so the system really can't be abused. I would chat with your GM about it. (S)he will more than likely be reasonable with your situation, or at least tell you how (s)he would like to see the effect created.

The ones I can think of: Healing used for regeneration must either buy the Cumulative advantage, or increase the maximum benefit to double the character's maximum Body. This makes it expensive--as it should be--and consistent. Flash works as in 4th edition (including cost, except for non-targetting senses, which are half). I run mostly heroic adventures, and the new Flash rules make the Power mostly pointless there. Characters of unusual size may buy Growth or Shrinking, with the modifiers No End, Persistant, Inherent, and Always On. I never got the point of denying this. Buying the individual benefits and Disadvantages winds up differing by only a point or two every time I have tried it, anyway. Buying Growth or Shrinking in this way seems easier to wrap my mind around, too. I guess this isn't really specified one way or the other in the book, but I allow Skill Levels and Combat Skill Levels to be "upgraded" to more expensive ones. I require that a character have at least a 5-point Combat Skill Level to trade in along with a Skill Level in order to get an Overall Skill Level which is good for combat as well (the character is refunded the leftover points, and may immediately use them to buy either type of level without further training). I often also require that 5-point and(/or) higher skill levels be obtained this way, rather than bought directly (unless starting characters are pretty powerful). In superheroic games, I do allow more than one Figured Characteristic to be bought back. It's your funeral. Many (but not all) packages that I provide do not count their Disadvantages toward your maximum Disadvatage total. I like to mess with Spd and the Speed chart (see the "Shaking up the Speed Chart" thread). I require that anyone with a Multipower or VPP may not slow down the game while they decide how to allocate their points. If it takes more than about 10 real-time seconds after I call a player's turn, they are considered to be holding their action. I also allow only one change in a Framework per Phase, rather than any time a 0-Phase action can take place (no, "I allocate all my points to Running, do my Half Move, reallocate all my points to a HKA, and attack"). I do not, in general, like experience based on combat, but I like characters to develop a bit faster than normal, so I give extra experience based on challenging situations (something like a point per really tough scenario), including combat if it is really tough. I also award points based on significant story contribution (even out of session writups), very creative or otherwise brilliant ideas, etc. I never allow the spread of experience between players to be more than 2 points in a given session, however. For multi-session adventures, I award experience each session, with the overall story award coming at the end.

Re: Forget the Points. No kidding. And how about his base alone.