Zephrosyne

Immunity to common sense comes to mind...

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.

Actually, I thought that husband/wife duo Thunder and Lightning--I think that was their names--was more interesting.  Of course, I also think they should have kept Bora alive and on Eurostar so what do I know, lol.

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 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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The OMCV at 3 is neither an advantage nor is it a limitation if you don't have any mental powers because I don't envision any scenario where it would come into play.  Sure I could let a person buy it down to 0 then create a scenario (a handy/needed/convenient Focus of opportunity?) where it would be limiting but frankly, I don't see any reason or have any inclination to bother.  Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't come up more than once in a campaign and I honestly don't see that happening.  I have often heard/seen/read the reasoning that a complication/disadvantage/limitation/etc. is the player's way of telling the gm that they want to see something in play and that is all well and good,  but as gm, I get to decide whether that is something that I want to put into play.  If I don't see it coming in to play, I would veto said complication/disadvantage/limitation just as I would tell a player not to select/pay for a benefit/advantage that would not come into play.  That position is consistent.
 
As for the player being able to "set" OMCV to what they would like if they have no mental powers, that is your opinion and I do not share it.  If they see the "3" next to the Characteristic as "completely irrelevant window dressing" then so be it.  They can stand and gawk at it or ignore and walk by it like any other window dressing.  If the "3" is that painful to look at then I envy the player because life has been far too easy for him/her in general.  Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent.  For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

The OMCV at 3 is neither an advantage nor is it a limitation if you don't have any mental powers because I don't envision any scenario where it would come into play.  Sure I could let a person buy it down to 0 then create a scenario (a handy/needed/convenient Focus of opportunity?) where it would be limiting but frankly, I don't see any reason or have any inclination to bother.  Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't come up more than once in a campaign and I honestly don't see that happening.  I have often heard/seen/read the reasoning that a complication/disadvantage/limitation/etc. is the player's way of telling the gm that they want to see something in play and that is all well and good,  but as gm, I get to decide whether that is something that I want to put into play.  If I don't see it coming in to play, I would veto said complication/disadvantage/limitation just as I would tell a player not to select/pay for a benefit/advantage that would not come into play.  That position is consistent.
 
As for the player being able to "set" OMCV to what they would like if they have no mental powers, that is your opinion and I do not share it.  If they see the "3" next to the Characteristic as "completely irrelevant window dressing" then so be it.  They can stand and gawk at it or ignore and walk by it like any other window dressing.  If the "3" is that painful to look at then I envy the player because life has been far too easy for him/her in general.  Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent.  For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

The OMCV at 3 is neither an advantage nor is it a limitation if you don't have any mental powers because I don't envision any scenario where it would come into play.  Sure I could let a person buy it down to 0 then create a scenario (a handy/needed/convenient Focus of opportunity?) where it would be limiting but frankly, I don't see any reason or have any inclination to bother.  Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't come up more than once in a campaign and I honestly don't see that happening.  I have often heard/seen/read the reasoning that a complication/disadvantage/limitation/etc. is the player's way of telling the gm that they want to see something in play and that is all well and good,  but as gm, I get to decide whether that is something that I want to put into play.  If I don't see it coming in to play, I would veto said complication/disadvantage/limitation just as I would tell a player not to select/pay for a benefit/advantage that would not come into play.  That position is consistent.
 
As for the player being able to "set" OMCV to what they would like if they have no mental powers, that is your opinion and I do not share it.  If they see the "3" next to the Characteristic as "completely irrelevant window dressing" then so be it.  They can stand and gawk at it or ignore and walk by it like any other window dressing.  If the "3" is that painful to look at then I envy the player because life has been far too easy for him/her in general.  Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent.  For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

The OMCV at 3 is neither an advantage nor is it a limitation if you don't have any mental powers because I don't envision any scenario where it would come into play.  Sure I could let a person buy it down to 0 then create a scenario (a handy/needed/convenient Focus of opportunity?) where it would be limiting but frankly, I don't see any reason or have any inclination to bother.  Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't come up more than once in a campaign and I honestly don't see that happening.  I have often heard/seen/read the reasoning that a complication/disadvantage/limitation/etc. is the player's way of telling the gm that they want to see something in play and that is all well and good,  but as gm, I get to decide whether that is something that I want to put into play.  If I don't see it coming in to play, I would veto said complication/disadvantage/limitation just as I would tell a player not to select/pay for a benefit/advantage that would not come into play.  That position is consistent.
 
As for the player being able to "set" OMCV to what they would like if they have no mental powers, that is your opinion and I do not share it.  If they see the "3" next to the Characteristic as "completely irrelevant window dressing" then so be it.  They can stand and gawk at it or ignore and walk by it like any other window dressing.  If the "3" is that painful to look at then I envy the player because life has been far too easy for him/her in general.  Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent.  For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

The OMCV at 3 is neither an advantage nor is it a limitation if you don't have any mental powers because I don't envision any scenario where it would come into play.  Sure I could let a person buy it down to 0 then create a scenario (a handy/needed/convenient Focus of opportunity?) where it would be limiting but frankly, I don't see any reason or have any inclination to bother.  Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't come up more than once in a campaign and I honestly don't see that happening.  I have often heard/seen/read the reasoning that a complication/disadvantage/limitation/etc. is the player's way of telling the gm that they want to see something in play and that is all well and good,  but as gm, I get to decide whether that is something that I want to put into play.  If I don't see it coming in to play, I would veto said complication/disadvantage/limitation just as I would tell a player not to select/pay for a benefit/advantage that would not come into play.  That position is consistent.
 
As for the player being able to "set" OMCV to what they would like if they have no mental powers, that is your opinion and I do not share it.  If they see the "3" next to the Characteristic as "completely irrelevant window dressing" then so be it.  They can stand and gawk at it or ignore and walk by it like any other window dressing.  If the "3" is that painful to look at then I envy the player because life has been far too easy for him/her in general.  Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent.  For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

I can't see Menton joining up.  He seems to be insufferably arrogant to a degree that none those "egos" would put up with him.  I have a hard time seeing Menton being convinced that he would need to be among "equals."  He would insist on treating them more like the "help"; kinda like he was when he was dealing with PSI before his incarceration.  Dude is a control freak!
 
Ah, isn't Baron Nihil a Nazi and Joseph Otanga an African.  Unless I have seriously misunderstood what it means to be a Nazi, there might be issues.
 
Doctor Yin Wu is a luddite in the extreme.  Dude has a Psychological Complication (Common, Strong) for his hatred of technology.  He would probably have a hard time working with Warlord and Interface.  There's also that despising Westerner's thing.
 
It would be fun to watch the fireworks in that group.  I think instead of fighting them, the good guys should grab some popcorn and coke and watch the show. 

I guess I can be lumped in with the other "lazy, shortsighted, and biased" gms because I wouldn't allow OMCV to be sold back either.

I guess I can be lumped in with the other "lazy, shortsighted, and biased" gms because I wouldn't allow OMCV to be sold back either.

Yeah, I agree that thickness should have an effect on DEF as well as BODY.  I just kinda adjust it as needed.  One thing that could help is The Ultimate Brick, which has an Expanded Object Table on pages 107-112.  For example it doesn't just have a DEF/BODY for a brick wall like the main rule book.  It breaks it down to Thin/Small Brick Wall, Average Brick Wall, and Large Thick Brick Wall and they have different DEF as well as different BODY.  It may not be as comprehensive as you would like but it does have a good number examples of various walls with DEF based on thickness in addition to BODY.  I think it is a good guideline.  Just note that if you use 6th Edition, The Ultimate Brick is a 5th Edition supplement but It is still quite serviceable for this matter.

I can't see Menton joining up.  He seems to be insufferably arrogant to a degree that none those "egos" would put up with him.  I have a hard time seeing Menton being convinced that he would need to be among "equals."  He would insist on treating them more like the "help"; kinda like he was when he was dealing with PSI before his incarceration.  Dude is a control freak!
 
Ah, isn't Baron Nihil a Nazi and Joseph Otanga an African.  Unless I have seriously misunderstood what it means to be a Nazi, there might be issues.
 
Doctor Yin Wu is a luddite in the extreme.  Dude has a Psychological Complication (Common, Strong) for his hatred of technology.  He would probably have a hard time working with Warlord and Interface.  There's also that despising Westerner's thing.
 
It would be fun to watch the fireworks in that group.  I think instead of fighting them, the good guys should grab some popcorn and coke and watch the show. 

I haven't really had to opportunity to play as much Hero System as I would have liked over the years (played way too many other games) but I have played it a decent bit.  The Multipower Framework in itself isn't really that much of a problem but I do think that it requires gm oversight.  Yes, I know everything does but I have seen some people really stretch a "concept" to justify putting something into a Multipower because adding slots is pretty cheap.  I have had wanna be munchkins over the years but no really competent ones.  I am actually pretty good at picking up things that will be a problem and I have absolutely no problem with saying "no."  I don't really find the Multipower Framework to be too cost effective but then again I can be a rather strict gm.  If you can't explain your concept in detail well enough to justify something, you don't get it.  As I said, I have no problem saying "no" and my gaming group knows it.  Variable Power Pools are a different animal and I do find those too cheap and I have addressed that in my games but I will not really go into that: I don't want to deviate too much from the original poster's intent.  That is my answer as far as the second question.  As for the first question, regarding what game effect the Multipower is supposed to provide, I don't have any answer for that beyond what is in the rulebook and the various examples in the various supplements. 

I think the cutoff point may vary from campaign to campaign,  more specifically, probably especially, from gm to gm.  Speaking for myself, I don't have a long list of equipment that you can and can't have any more than I have a list of powers/power builds that  you can and can't have.  Once you know yourself as a gm and the campaign that you have built, you just know.  For myself: yes, Tom, you can have that flashlight, cell phone, and Ferrari as equipment because you can afford it (can steal it or whatever); however, if you think you are going to have Iron Man's armor (or a facsimile of) without spending character points, you're out of your damn mind.  The cutoff point is kinda like the definition of obscenity: you may not be able to exactly define it, but you'll know it when you see it.  The important thing is being consistent with your judgement and making sure your players understand it.  If you know yourself as a gm and your campaign, it isn't that difficult.