Sean Waters

Lovely idea. I like that a lot.  Limit the REC to 'only when recovering negative STUN'

I was thinking about the negative STUN consciousness/recovery timetable and was wondering if it would be reasonable to buy something like smelling salts as 10 REC as well as +50 STUN (only to move up the STUN recovery time chart).
 
Anybody ever done something like this? Is it too breaky or a good idea? Nothing worse than sitting on your (unconscious) hands while a fight rages on because you won't get a recovery for another 4 TURNS or so.

I actually think you and Sinanju are on the same page here, though I may be wrong. What feels "wrong" about adjustment powers comes from the divorcing of SFX from the mechanical power. When a "Drain Flight" works equally well vs. wings, tk thrust, boot-jets, and riding cosmic essence... that just feels completely wrong. The "power suppressing ray" or "power scanner" that somehow targets... well... what does it target?  That kind of thing makes no sense and really break verisimilitude.
 
Your point on needing well defined SFX is important, as it makes or breaks the use of adjustment powers. An "MGH steroid boost" to STR should not have any affect on Wonder Man, whose body is composed of Ionic Energy (to use a Marvel example)... but this requires a lot of prep on the GMs part to define which SFX work in their game.

I had a very similar McGuffin for powers in my game. It was called crystal-tech or crystech in its macro form, a kind of morphic crystalline structure that reacted to conscious thought, becoming a variety of different powers/power source. Originally was the justification for super-tech that defied physics/couldn't be easily reproduced, but over time, was discovered to be a manifestation of any underlying structure of the universe, more concentrated in some areas/planets than others, but existed at the molecular genetic level and was the source of all physics defying powers. (It was a manifestation of fifth dimensional energy, which was eventually discovered to be the source code of the universe, so manifesting powers was how a limited, three-dimensional being "hacked" the universe.) This kind of "universal SFX" in a way would justify a "drain" of kind, even though they were rare, and never universal or easy to come by, in my game.
 
It just needs to be recognized that sometimes the SFX separation from mechanics really undermines the rule and play levels of Hero games. 

Not in Hero he couldn't.

I would consider Inherent is an advantage that should rarely be used.  It should not be used, for example, to simply make a power undrainable.  I use it almost exclusively when a situation simply does not apply to a character: for example
 
1. RoboDog is a robot dog.  RoboDog does not have lungs or require oxygen.  RoboDog has LS(Does not breathe) that is Inherent.  It would be ridiculous for a drain to suddenly make RoboDog need to breathe.
2. Confusus has a weirdly wired brain that is hard to read because it is complex.  Confusus has Mental Defence (vs Telepathy) that is Inherent.   It would be ridiculous for a drain to suddenly make Confusus' brain less complicated.
 
I'm not so keen on the Angel/flight example because you could define your Drain as a gravity field preventing flight.  That would work, wings or not.  
 
I'm also not keen on defining something as 'so powerful it cannot be drained' because someone might have a really powerful drain.  "My Invulnerability is God Given!", "Well, my Drain is God's Dad Given."
 
Basically if it is not something you do, it is something you are then you can have Inherent, otherwise probably not, at least in my tiny little world.  It does come down, to an extent, to SFX making sense, but the system places mechanics over SFX - there is nothing preventing you buying Inherent for any power other than common sense, which, in practice, rarely stops anyone doing anything they want to do anyway; I do like to ask players why their powers work as they are built though, and if I don't like the answers, I beat them to within an inch of their lives, so that rarely happens twice.

Superman could still fly after being grabbed by the Hu... I mean Solomon Grundy.
 
https://youtu.be/bnuqMyU9fIQ
 

Aren't Superman's powers drained by Kryptonite?  Can't your ability to breathe be taken away, for example if you are in a vacuum, or get punched in the solar plexus?  Can't your sight be taken away with a blindfold or smoke?  Is a strength-reducing drug cocktail going to work on someone whose strength works by touch telekinesis?
 
So, in this one game I ran superpowers were an interaction between your genetic code and your ability to draw zero point energy from the Universal Matrix (the structure underlying all reality).  Thousands of years ago our planet was dosed with a virus that removed the cell bodies that could channel the zero point energy and replaced them with Mitochondria – sufficient to power the processes of life but not enough to manifest powers by gene interaction.
 
Recently the virtochondria have been reintroduced to some individuals, allowing them to manifest powers.  Their powers can be weakened by anything capable of disrupting their link between the Universal Matrix and their genetic code (or boosted by anything strengthening that link - do not forget an inherent power can not be Aided either).
 
I’ve long argued that all Adjustment powers should be required to have a well defined SFX that explains how they work.
 
You could build a Friction Field that logically reduces all movement, but if another character’s powers are based on negating friction they might be unaffected.
 
You would certainly get a cost break for this, but the point is it would be mandatory to have.

I figure inherent are abilities that can't be just "shut off" by others, they're not an addon to the character but part of their very nature.  You have to mangle or somehow harm them to shut off their power.

So far we have two entries. All of Sean Waters ones are invalid as Boromir, Lee Adama and Edge of Tomorrow are fiction. And I get the distinct feeling that he is trolling this thread at present or am I 'miss'-ing something ? Military leaders means people like Julius Caeser, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Blucher and Wellington.   

I already ignoring Sean. Honestly, how old is he? I thought he was 30-40, but he now seems 12 to me.
 
Raviouss Khan is David Tang, who believes he is related to Geangus Khan. He gets his name because he gets stragital insites about battles when he eats, and judging from his gut he eats a lot.

Yeah , I forgot about the no aid portion.  I think most people dwell on the dispel/drain side.
 

To the Angel's flight, or wings, legs are part of the typical character, but their Running can be Drained.  

Yes... this does make things more complicated... more in the idea of "What about the base 10 STR" that characters start with? Is that not inherently part of who they are? It can't be aided?
 
We are very quickly in a really weird place here. Mainly based on how Adjustment Powers are working, less so than Inherent in and of itself, or inherently?     Like, if Angelic Strongwoman has Inherent 100 STR, does that mean she can't put on power armor that gives her +30 STR more? No, because that is not an Aid to STR as per the rules. So maybe Aid is the wrong way to go about it? If we want to keep that concept of "base human plus extra on top" then shouldn't any Aid to STR be built with just some version of "STR" that is somehow usable by others? 
 
Or maybe, what really needs to happen is that every ability (Characteristic or Power, I'm assuming Skills and Talents can't be affected by adjustment powers) has to be thought through at the beginning "Is there any situation where the ability could be enhanced or decreased in a way that isn't fundamentally transforming the character into something else?

This is actually a big part of this discussion. I remember haggling over it years ago as 5th was being debated. As Hero became a toolkit for building "any character you wanted" there was a lot of discussion about "Really? Any character?"    Because, as Sean mentioned, what was being assumed was "any baseline human, action adventure based character that may or may not have additional abilities layered on top."
 
My question is, has that every been formally declared? Because I do think it is axiomatic to Hero. (While you can try to play a game where everyone is a sentient virus, or even just non-action based humans like the cool new Jane Austen roll playing game out there, you really aren't being supported by the core rules of Hero, because they weren't built to play that kind of game.) Because if declared, then Inherent really is a way, maybe, to break that axiom... but it is also implying a limitation to the kinds of characters you should play, which is an interesting game design challenge.

Ultra and Multi slots became Fixed and Variable slots in 6e Multipowers.

I would suggest 'Cyberkinesis' on page 70 of the Advanced Players' Guide and 'Possession' on page 74 of the Advanced Players' Guide. 
 
Basically I'd suggest the Advanced Players' Guide if you do not have it yet.
 
Sounds very much like what you are after but:
 
1. it is all going to depend on how your GM plays computers in his game and
2. if you are the only intangible computer hacker that can be difficult to run, especially if the DM wants to set part of the game where there is no useful tech to appropriate...

I like glass cannons for villains - dangerous but relatively easy to stop.  Not so much for players who get narked if they spend half of all combats unconscious.
 

Missile Deflection

Yes, apparently the movie opens with Diana Prince and Barbara Minerva playing high stakes poker and Diana somehow losing despite having four aces.
 
The rest of the movie is a chase scene with music scored by whoever did Bennie Hill.

Yes, apparently the movie opens with Diana Prince and Barbara Minerva playing high stakes poker and Diana somehow losing despite having four aces.
 
The rest of the movie is a chase scene with music scored by whoever did Bennie Hill.

There have been discussions over the years of the roll low mechanic for combat.  Many, and I have been one of them, have espoused the view that we would be far better off starting over and rolling high because that tends to make more sense to more people: high = good.  Not only that, but the target number would be a 10, which is a much friendlier number than an 11.
 
Now whilst I have seen the argument made for combat, it does not seem to apply to skill rolls: people seem perfectly happy with them because the high = good is already built in – you just look at the skill roll you need to roll under.
 
The mechanic for combat and skills is in fact exactly the same but they feel very different, at least to me.
 
Now I’m sure this has been kicked around the park before, but why not treat combat rolls like skill rolls?  Here is a tweak on that concept:
 
You have a combat skill roll based on your OCV and DCV.  The Attack skill  is 11+OCV, and you have to roll under that to hit: this is slightly different from how combat works at present in that you can roll high and hit a very low DCV, but in practice this rule change will usually only affect characters without increased combat stats (usually NPCs) and speed overall combat.  It also gives a ‘miss’ mechanic if you want it, and is more in line with the way skill rolls often work.  If you do not like it, skip that bit.
 
Roll 3d6 and work out how much you succeeded by i.e. your skill less your roll and that is the DCV you can hit.
 
Example: You have and OCV of 5 so your combat skill is 11+5 = 16.  You need to roll a 16 or less to potentially hit anything.
 
If you roll a 13 you can hit a DCV of 16-3 = 3 or less
 
One nice thing about this approach is that you can also switch it around easily and use Defensive Combat Skill (DCS) or Defence Skill.  This would be 10+DCV (yes, 10, because there is an advantage in Hero to being the attacker).  The same mechanic then applies.
 
Roll 3d6 and work out how much you succeeded by i.e. your skill less your roll and that is the OCV that can hit you.
 
Example: You have a DCV of 4 so your combat skill is 11+4 = 15.  You need to roll a 15 or less to potentially avoid a hit.
 
If you roll a 10 the difference is 15-10 so an OCV of at least 5 is required to hit you.  (You can turn this around using the same numbers: if you had an OCV of 5 then you have a combat skill of 16, and a roll of 12 means you can hit 16-12 = 4 DCV or worse.  I use 12 because we are ‘reversing the burden’ – a good DCS roll is the same as a bad OCS roll)
 
You can use defence rather than attack to reduce the burden on the DM or you could use both in a climactic duel: each party rolls their OCS when attacking and the defender has to match the success with their DCS roll to avoid damage.
 
Mechanically this is exactly what we are doing at present but it feels cleaner to me, just presenting it that way, and it feels like more of a unification of skill and combat mechanics.
 
Thoughts?
 

There have been discussions over the years of the roll low mechanic for combat.  Many, and I have been one of them, have espoused the view that we would be far better off starting over and rolling high because that tends to make more sense to more people: high = good.  Not only that, but the target number would be a 10, which is a much friendlier number than an 11.
 
Now whilst I have seen the argument made for combat, it does not seem to apply to skill rolls: people seem perfectly happy with them because the high = good is already built in – you just look at the skill roll you need to roll under.
 
The mechanic for combat and skills is in fact exactly the same but they feel very different, at least to me.
 
Now I’m sure this has been kicked around the park before, but why not treat combat rolls like skill rolls?  Here is a tweak on that concept:
 
You have a combat skill roll based on your OCV and DCV.  The Attack skill  is 11+OCV, and you have to roll under that to hit: this is slightly different from how combat works at present in that you can roll high and hit a very low DCV, but in practice this rule change will usually only affect characters without increased combat stats (usually NPCs) and speed overall combat.  It also gives a ‘miss’ mechanic if you want it, and is more in line with the way skill rolls often work.  If you do not like it, skip that bit.
 
Roll 3d6 and work out how much you succeeded by i.e. your skill less your roll and that is the DCV you can hit.
 
Example: You have and OCV of 5 so your combat skill is 11+5 = 16.  You need to roll a 16 or less to potentially hit anything.
 
If you roll a 13 you can hit a DCV of 16-3 = 3 or less
 
One nice thing about this approach is that you can also switch it around easily and use Defensive Combat Skill (DCS) or Defence Skill.  This would be 10+DCV (yes, 10, because there is an advantage in Hero to being the attacker).  The same mechanic then applies.
 
Roll 3d6 and work out how much you succeeded by i.e. your skill less your roll and that is the OCV that can hit you.
 
Example: You have a DCV of 4 so your combat skill is 11+4 = 15.  You need to roll a 15 or less to potentially avoid a hit.
 
If you roll a 10 the difference is 15-10 so an OCV of at least 5 is required to hit you.  (You can turn this around using the same numbers: if you had an OCV of 5 then you have a combat skill of 16, and a roll of 12 means you can hit 16-12 = 4 DCV or worse.  I use 12 because we are ‘reversing the burden’ – a good DCS roll is the same as a bad OCS roll)
 
You can use defence rather than attack to reduce the burden on the DM or you could use both in a climactic duel: each party rolls their OCS when attacking and the defender has to match the success with their DCS roll to avoid damage.
 
Mechanically this is exactly what we are doing at present but it feels cleaner to me, just presenting it that way, and it feels like more of a unification of skill and combat mechanics.
 
Thoughts?