Netzilla

There is a Limitation that allows AoEs to be deflected to represent grenades and the like. Is it possible that is what you're thinking of?

Since the sense is defined as part of the radio group, HRRP has you covered as far as sharing the sense goes. Targeting based on that might be a little trickier, but is essentially no different than a toward observer relaying attack coordinates, so I'd personally allow it. You might want to consider making the HRRP Targeting (only via relayed target data), if you want to charge for it (as I recall, you explicitly cannot target via Clairsentience).

Take a look at the Accidental Change Complication (Champions Complete pg 125).

FYI, resource pools are also in APG1. The focus seems okay to me as I took it as the character's way of identifying his or her self to the prospective contact. As it's Obvious, I would assume almost anyone would recognize it for exactly what it is. Could lead to Secret ID problems.

Sure. Other games I've run and played had similar "powers" and I've frequently found it convenient for pointing PCs in the right direction as a GM. Loyal might be a bit much; Devoted and Slavishly Loyal definitely so. I'd rather limit it to Friendly.

I'd call it a toss-up. Someone with a little knowledge can sound more convincing than someone completely ignorant. Still more dangerous, however are experts who ignore any data contradictory to their preconceived (or bought) ideas.

As far as I know, ACV does not. Only AVAD makes attacks Stun Only.

In CC it does not restrict this rule to costs and specifies that this is meant to favor the PC. This matches the way every group I've played with since 3e has handled it. Interesting thing about the 3e wording is that if the players are playing villains, the rounding won't work in their favor. I'm guessing the authors weren't really thinking about that. In any case, in the rare instances of PC vs PC combat, we did round in the defender';s favor because that's the standard in quite a few game systems.

Exactly.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Rules as written, there is no way to circumvent the Attack Roll in the Hero System. The system only has a couple of fairly minor absolutes (most in Life Support) and otherwise shies away from them. One of the common ways to get close to this effect is Area Effect: Accurate (Champions Complete 97, top of 2nd column; I don't have Fantasy Hero Complete but I'm guessing it has the same entry under Area of Effect). Sure, an attacker might miss the 3 DCV but characters in most campaigns should be hitting a DCV 3 90% of the time or more (only requires an OCV of 6+). As a GM, you could rule that AE: Accurate is close enough to waive the to hit roll, so the only way to avoid the hit is to Dive For Cover out of the area.

Rounding .5 in the player's favor goes back to 3e at least (I don't have any 1e or 2e books to check). To the OP, the current wording of the rule can be found in Champions Complete, pg 10, under ROUND-OFFS AND MINIMUM COST (should be under a similar heading for Fantasy Hero Complete and Hero System 6e)..

Here's the one from the team I use for demo games. Turbo.pdf

I'm generally not a fan of 'speed factors' since there's a lot more to "imitative" than relative weapon weights. Reach is a huge part of it and is largely ignored by most games. My own experience with fencing and kickboxing has taught me how even as little as a few inches reach advantage can be very difficult to overcome against a skilled opponent. If someone has longer reach, they can hit you while you literally cannot hit them. Even when you close, they can still hit you (especially when you take into account such tactics as half-swording, pommel strikes, quillon strikes, using a hafted weapon as a quarterstaff and so on). So, I really don't think relative weapon weight should be the primary (let alone the only) factor in determining how "fast" a weapon is. In any case, even if you are a fan of lighter=faster or you take into account weight, reach and versatility in deciding weapon speed, as Chris Taylor points out it's generally more of a bookkeeping headache than it's worth. Oftentimes, the character choosing the lighter weapon already has the higher DEX and SPD anyway, so you won't notice the difference. If you still want to give it a try, give faster weapons limited Lightning Reflexes and CSLs to counter Multi-Attack penalties as part of their write-up.

Not Hugh, but when I think about it. . . Most agents are going to be, what, in the 5-6 OCV range while suppers are probably 8-10 or higher. Even without penalties, those agents are going to be needing 8- (~25%) or worse to block most of the time. Once penalties get figured in and you're probably looking at 3-5 for success (somewhere between 1/2% and 5%). Those agents are way better off dodging than trying to block, even without penalties. So, yeah, I'd allow it just because one might get lucky. That one gets lucking a few times and we might have ourselves an origin. Seriously, in one of our previous campaigns, our team was in a facility that came under psychic assault. One of the lab techs, a complete norm, managed to keep rolling 3s to break out of the Mind Control. It happened something like 4 times in a row. The GM decided that's when his latent psychic powers kicked in.

And get off my lawn!

Eh, I do that anyway because I'm already using benchmarks and power levels outside the default (8 CV, 10 DC, 23 DEF, 10 rDEF, 4 SPD, etc). Maybe I'm a little masochistic but I like my supers closer to street level.

And an accomplished wrestler. The stories periodically made a point of him being quicker and more agile than most would think. While certainly not Olympic gymnast caliber, a fair case could be made for putting him at DEX 12-15.

You joke, but I recall suggestions to rename Block and Dodge because the names imply specific SFX. Heck Energy Blast, Force Wall, Armor and other Hero elements have been renamed to remove their SFX connotations so the idea isn't without precident. Like you, I prefer Damage Resistance, PD and ED be reserved for 'hard' damage prevention rather than damage avoidance, so I'm not fond of the Combat Luck talent. I like the idea of a clear delineation of when an attack hits and misses and feel things like CL muddy those waters. Thus I fully understand your preference for Block only being used for attack interception/deflection defenses. Unfortunately, I feel that ship sailed without us many years ago.

You've got it.

If you're referring to post 142, I was simply stating that looking only at Steve Long created characters would induce bias, so we would need to look at characters from a variety of authors.

Oh, I agree it has problems. Heck, you didn't even touch on the issues it caused interacting with the 5e Speed Adjustment rules (something else I immediately house ruled).

Sounds like you played with my old college group. Okay. I doubt our genre expectations are all that different. I suspect, that between you and me, the main difference is that I'd rather allow a chance for a player to get lucky than flat out deny the Block. How much of a penalty I'd assess would be based on how well they sold me on the block action they took. If The Thing wants to use a hunk of concrete or a mailbox to block Doctor Doom's blast then it'll be a small penalty. If Tony Stark wants to catch an arrow in his bare hands when he's not wearing armor, it'll be a large penalty (enough so that it'll be a matter of luck to succeed). I suspect the other big difference is that I'd prefer more parity between Block and Dodge than you would. In my experience, I've seen Dodge used far more often than Block because it's often the superior tactical choice based on the mechanics: 1) Dodge has always worked vs both HtH and Range and Block never used to work vs Ranged. 2) Dodge is equally effective no matter how many attacks you dodge whereas Block takes a penalty for each attack after the first. 3) Dodge DCVs were typically higher than Block OCVs unless a character had a lot of OCV-only CSLs. Yeah, the initiative mod it gives can be nice but is very dependent on relative SPD and DEX scores. If your DEX is already higher, the init mod doesn't help at all. If your opponent's next Phase comes before yours, the init mod doesn't help at all. So, overall, I'm happy Block has gotten a boost.

Can't really say I have a beef with you. In post 140, I was responding to Christopher Taylor's post 138 (wherein he basically argued that normal people don't block ranged attacks with their bare hands). I stated that the rules already allow unarmed people to block swords with their bare hands at no penalty by default and have done so since 1e even though that also requires considerable training and luck to succeed with. In post 143, you responded by pointing out the CC optional rule for unarmed blocking. I then gave the above response to clarify my point. No beef involved whatsoever; simply a clarification of my position. In any case, I don't believe I've ever told you that you're running your games wrong (heck, I barely know anything about how you run your games), but if I've given that impression, I apologize.

Sure, your call as a GM would be to not allow an unarmed block vs most ranged attacks and I don't think I've ever contended that was outside of a any GM's purview. My main point in the post you responded to was to explain how my POV isn't as inconsistent as Ninja-Bear seems to think it is. My main point in this thread is that the 6e rule on Blocking ranged attacks isn't some horrible aberration ripe for player abuse and worthy of a new Great Linked Debate (obviously, I'm failing on that 2nd part). Yes, it requires GMs to make a ruling based on genre and SFX, but that's kind of the norm for the Hero System. Hero's always been a game that requires a non-trivial amount of pre-campaign work on the part of the GM, not just in the realm of mechanically building the game world but in deciding on which of the plethora of optional rules will be in play and clearing up any known rule vagaries. Yeah, it would be nice if this rule were less vague but it's hardly the first or worst case of this happening in Hero's history.