Zephrosyne

While I agree that it isn't "only" up to the "Player" to be a responsible player, I think far too many players are far too willing to abdicate their part of the responsibility, which in all honesty should be mostly on them not them gm. There is nothing remotely hard about behaving like a reasonable and mature adult (or teenager) when creating and playing a character. An even modestly experienced player should not need the gm to hold his damn hand. You only have the one job for godsakes. I have always been fairly lenient with people who are new to roleplaying games; they usually don't know better. Hell, I think to a degree, the power geekery/munchkin phase is one of the growing pains of roleplaying. God knows, me and the group I started out with had our moments. They were positively cringe-worthy. However, when I know you know better, at best I will give you the business because of your bs and tell you to get your act together. At worst, I'll let you play the abusive character and then show you (in game on full display for everyone playing to watch) that no matter what you think you have and no matter what you think you can create or come up with, my point budget is unlimited so you need to act like you have some damn sense or get the hell away from our gaming table. Your behavior is not welcome. Your choice!

Similar to the Star Hero reference that Armitage mentioned, in the Advanced Player's Guide 2 (pg. 114) there is a section titled Attacking And Destroying Large Objects which covers destroying not just the Earth but large objects in general such as mountains. The section gives multiple options (in terms of rules) for attacking large objects that might be of interest.

I would not give a Limitation for this, certainly not just because of it being visible. This just isn't limiting enough to merit a -1/4 Limitation. In fact 6E1 pg. 388 specifically mentions reducing the Perceivable Limitation to 0 in the case of Defense Powers. Then again, I am a fairly strict gm when it comes to things like this.

I have found Variable Power Pools to be a bit too cheap. In my campaigns, the default cost assumes (and enforces) a relatively tight special effect (e.g. Fire Powers, Gravity Powers, etc.); if the player (or NPC) has a broader category special effect there is a surcharge applied to the Control Cost. The surcharge can be as little as +1/4 to as much as +1 in the case of extremely broad special effects such as Cosmic, Magic, Psionics etc. However, if the special effect is rather narrow, a Limitation may be called for. I am also very, very watchful of slots with Limitations. Some Limitations aren't all that limiting when you have a Variable Pool that you change slots every Phase such as Blast (Only Versus Orcs) which can be Blast (Only Versus Dragons) as a Zero Phase Action. Also, like other gms I only allow them in the hands of experienced players. Lastly, I don't allow the game to be slowed by someone with a Variable Power Pool. The player is required to make a nice list of prepared configurations to have on hand.

Thank you for the responses. One thing, PhilFleishmann, thought there isn't an option for "Any One power of ANY SFX," there is an Advantage in the Advanced Player's Guide (pg. 55) to let you affect multiple special effects with Adjustment Powers. You can affect up to 2 special effects for +1/4 Advantage. For a greater Advantage, more special effects can be adjusted. Steve accidentally named the new Advantage, Variable Special Effects; upon realizing that there was already an Advantage with the same name in the Character Creation book, he changed the name of the Advantage to Varying Special Effects (or something like that). Incidentally, there is also an Advantage, Multiple Special Effects, in 5th Edition Revised (pg. 112) that also does this. Thanks again.

There was something that I was curious about and I was hoping that those among you with greater system mastery than I have could enlighten me. The Advantage, Expanded Effect, allows an Adjustment Power to affect more than one game element at a time as a +1/2 Advantage. This is often paired with the Advantage, Variable Effect, also a +1/2 Advantage, used to vary which game element was adjusted. In 5th Edition, the Advantage, Variable Effect, roughly did the same thing as both 6th Edition Advantages: for +1/4, any one game element (Characteristics or Powers) of a designated special affect could be adjusted; for +1/2, any two game elements of a designated special effect could be adjusted; for +1 any four game elements of a designated special effect could be adjusted; and for +2, all game elements of a designated special effect could be adjusted. My curiosity is regarding the significant Advantage cost of increasing the number of game elements simultaneously affected by an Adjustment Power. 5th edition only costed (roughly) +1/4 Advantage to adjust an additional game element; whereas, 6th Edition, the cost is increased to a +1/2 Advantage to adjust an additional element. Why the price hike? Was there a significant balance issue that needed to be addressed? Just curious. Thank you.

This might be just what is needed. Thanos would see this level of opposition and laugh himself to death, Infinity Gauntlet or not...universe saved! I do think Daredevil is a bit too close to A-list for that Marvel roster; how bout switch him out for Nighthawk (former Defender).

Massey, you completely read my mind with you list. The exception was that I was thinking Scarlet Witch instead of Doctor Strange. While the good Doctor seems consistently more powerful and more versatile than the Witch day in and day out, she's the ultimate wild card when you need a total ass pull to save the day.

Ah, I need more information. What is Thanos bringing to the table in this fight? An army? The Infinity Guantlet? The Obsidian Order? If it is just Thanos by himself, six heroes shouldn't even be necessary: two heavy hitters from either DC (Superman and anybody) or Marvel (Thor and Silver Surfer) should dog walk his ass. Also, can we mix and match heroes from both Universes?

C&S? Do you mean Chivalry & Sorcery? If so, nice game.

Well, I don't really believe in "hard caps" per say but I do have very hard "soft caps." The base CV cap is 13 and up to 8 Combat Skill Levels are possible in my campaigns. So I guess the total would be 21. Note this is the absolute highest that any being would possess in any campaign that I would ever run. I would not let a character start with numbers near this high.

I think what you are looking for is in Hero System Martial Arts. Page 247 explains the different NNDs in detail. The numerical designations indicate what defense stops the NND. Using the examples you sited: NND1 is stopped by Rigid Resistant PD on vital areas, NND2 is stopped by Rigid Resistant PD on the neck or not having to breather, NND3 is stopped by Rigid Resistant PD on a specific Hit Location. That is the simplified version; that page has a lot more details.

Gnome Body, I have to admit that while I definitely prefer 6th Edition to any other Edition by far, the pricing change to Armor Piercing as well as Hardened no longer applying to Penetrating are questionable. Scottish Fox, that's an interesting spreadsheet. Thank you for sharing.

Actually, Piercing is in the Advanced Player's Guide (pg. 113) except that it is a Power not an Advantage. Although, by the description, it seems like more of an Adder than a Power. Although, I do think it is a bit overpriced when compared to Armor Piercing, at least as a +1/4 Advantage.

I was wondering about the Armor Piercing optional rule in the Advanced Player's Guide 1 (pgs. 136-137). Specifically, the option that alters the Advantage to where instead of reducing a target's defenses by half, each application of the Armor Piercing Advantage would reduce the target's defenses by a set amount of points (e.g. 5 or 8 or 10 or whatever). If you were using the optional rule, how many points of defense would you allow to be negated by a single application of the Armor Piercing Advantage? If your answer varies based on the power level or genre of the campaign, please feel free to elaborate. Thank you.