Tywyll

I imagine this was due to his actions as part of the "Sad Puppies" fiasco targeting the Hugo Awards in 2014. 

I would like to be a self-made billionaire.

dieRoller.html

You and me both. I hate it when I follow a link to some news item and I get a video instead of text. I want TEXT. A transcript I can skim to see if it's worth my time to read more closely, or to actually watch the video. Usually, I just hit the BACK button and move on. Life is too short to watch a 10 minute video that turns out to be pointless.

Long, focused aiming at the exclusion of all other activity (hence the DCV penalty).
 
Hero is an effects based game. Getting caught up in the names of the maneuver doesn't serve much purpose I don't think. 

When the Coronavirus really hits the tech industry will we switch to UDP to avoid handshakes?

I don't care for the flat amount either.  It is a little simpler to just doll out a flat amount (I use 3d6 for Heroic), but it mechanically falls apart outside of the sweet spot.  Weak attackers get a massive bonus and very powerful attackers get a bonus that is relatively small.
 
In my Fantasy HERO campaign I do allow Haymaker for spells (but not spreading, bouncing, etc.), but the extra 1 segment on top of the usually 3s (or longer) cast time at -5 DCV makes the caster so vulnerable that the maneuver is rarely used.  None of the casters want multiple arrows in their chest or to end up getting their spell off 1s after their enemy caster blasts them.  It's further compounded by Concentration checks (Ego check at -1 per 5 stun taken or spell is lost).
 
Loved your post.  The idea of a scrappy teenage kid hitting harder than a world strongman champion by using a Haymaker cracks me up.

Spence, Brennall on the Hero Discord server is finalizing a phase one release of a Hero System skin for Tabletop Simulator. TTS costs about $20 on Steam, but the Herosystem module will be free, and handles 5th and 6th editions. It’s one way of running a game without having to deal with Roll20 and Roll20’s monthly rent for Hero GMs, while Corona-Chan from Wuhan is out and about. 

World builders have always been a minority. 
 
My first Champions GM was an _excellent_ GM, and alousy world builder.  Pretty much all of our D&D was module-based, and all of our supers stuff was straight from comic books (I've never seen a larger comic collection in my life) 
 
There was a plus side to it, though: 
 
My original Traveller GM was a dedicated world-builder.  We were essentially using the "a traveller system" to play in a completely unique universe doing interesting and fun things. 
 
My second Traveller GM... We were using Traveller to live out his Star Trek fan fiction....   That was mercifully brief.... 
 
If it hadn't been for Jim"s inability to put together a solid world,--  and don't get me wrong:  he had the time, as he was the only real trust-fund kid I ever knew.  I don't think he even considered a job until his mid-thirties, and even that was just to meet people.... 
 
Anyway, he had the time, and I know for a fact that he _tried_, over and over.  He was just terrible at it... 
 
But if it hadn't been for this lack of talent, I would have never known the depth and breadth of the amazing published Traveller universe, which seems to have something for everyone. 
 
To be perfectly straight, even through all the incarnations of Traveller and the dozens of different people I've played under, I've never seen any homebrewed world that rivals it.  People who think it's about space merchants and royal intrigue haven't really paid a lot of attention to the other materials, but I don't evangelize it because I'd rather you didn't sit down with a predisposition to negativity anyway.  It's not going to be fun for you or anyone else if you do, right? 
 
I started this to state quite clearly that if everyone could build a world on their own-- and they can't, and few who can are able set aside their personal wants to create the broad appeal needed to entice enough people to keep coming back, year after year--   
 
If everyone could do it, there would never have been a shortage of material for _any_ game, ever. 
 
HERO is dead, and it's dead for lots of reasons, all of which none of us are ever likely to know, but targeting the extreme minority audience of "people with time, desire, and ability to craft their own worlds" strikes me as a likely contributor.  I could be wrong, but the resulting play model of "scour the planet looking for a GM wo can also build an interesting world and is maybe willing to travel a few hundred miles a week" couldn't have been great for the success of it. 

Sadly, world builders are a distinct minority in the new crop of time slammed gamers.

I keep harping on the D&D 5e starter set, but that's about how much setting it has.  That's about how much setting FH 1e came with.  
 
I'd be happy to have setting, if it eliminates the need for the GM to have to create everything -- primarily a magic system.  That in itself can be a barrier to entry for GMs.  That's probably what I would want most from a Fantasy Hero setting, to be honest.

This is important. All you need to do is define a mechanical effect that's so solid that you really don't have to think about it during play anymore. If you spend a healthy amount of points to build the most robust and "kludgy" effect for the spell, then you can relax during play, comfortable with the knowledge that all you need to know is you can press this button and unbind things. Hell, you could think of it not as banishing the restrictive object, but banishing it's restrictive nature. Whatever portion of a thing's nature is restrictive is erased from reality. Locks become paperweights that look like locks, chains and cages become uselessly maleable and soft, ropes lose the ability to tie into knots, and Lock/Knock spells are just erased from existence completely (because all they are is pure elemental restriction, so there is no portion of their nature that can be retained).

In some cases, and depending on genre, the handcuffs might have a -1/4 Real Equipment Limitation, akin to Real Weapon and Real Armor.  That Limitation would certainly allow it to be picked.  Entangle, Barrier, and Transform specifically are Instant Powers with an effect that lasts beyond the use of the Power, in much the same way as damage does.  You couldn't Dispel damage, so can you Dispel a created Entangle, Barrier, or Wall?  It also depends on the magic system; I've designed magic systems in which those Powers, and a few others (Mental Powers mainly) can be Dispelled after they're created.  You could either build it into the Power as a Limitation, or state it as one of the default conditions of your magic system.  
 
I think Suppress is what you'd want to use rather than Dispel.  In 5e it's its own Power; in 6e it's a build based on Drain.  Dispel against armor is definitely against a Power (Resistant Protection), while there's some... thought... about whether you can use Dispel on a sword's HKA.  My view is that there's some definitional stuff going on so that no, you can't ordinarily, but I imagine I'm in the minority; for instance, HKA is an Instant Power, so when you attack someone with your sword, technically you're activating the Killing Attack, Hand-to-hand Power (0 Phase action) then attacking with it (Half-Phase combat action).  You can't really Dispel a Power that is not currently activated, so the only time you could Dispel the HKA is when they're actually attacking with it.  I'll admit that my view is getting pretty deep into the weeds, though, and that it would be easier just to allow it.  
 
Alternatively...
 
 
seems like a reasonably good option.  Transform is one of the usual kludge Powers, but in this case I think it's an elegant use of it to represent the unbinding spell. 
 
 
With Transform, there are a couple of competing system level imperatives; typically, creating food, chain, or lock, are the results of using other Powers (Life Support and Entangle respectively) and would be used instead of Transform.  As a GM you can decide to handwave these.  
 
Assuming you (or the GM, if that's not you) have done so... with Transform, you'd ordinarily roll the dice, and need to achieve twice the target's BODY in order to Transform it.  An easy rule of thumb is that when creating objects or substances out of thin air, you can create half the BODY roll worth of the substance.  So for example, if you're creating ice using Transform: Thin Air to Ice, and you roll 10 BODY on your Transform dice, you're creating (10 / 2) 5 BODY worth of ice.  On the Object BODY table in the Breaking Things section (6e2 p. 172, but it's in 5ER, 5E, and the BBB as well, towards the back) 5 BODY worth of unliving is 25kg, so that 5 BODY comes out to 25kg of ice.  (The Breaking Things section can be generally helpful when figuring out how much BODY, X kilograms of something has, or the DEF and BODY of a wall of material Y, at Z millimeters thick.)
 
Assuming you don't want to use Transform for some reason, Entangle creates an object with 1 rPD, 1 rED, and 1d6 Normal dice of BODY (average of 1) for 10 points; Barrier uses +1 point for +1 BODY, +3 points for +2 rPD or rED.  The Advanced Player's Guide 2 includes a new Power: Object Creation, based on these costs: 20 points for an object up to 2 rPD, 2 rED, 2 BODY, +3 points for +2rPD, +2 rED, or +3 BODY.  Create Object specifically disallows using Create Object to create an object that another Power reasonably would, including chains (Entangle) and swords (HKA) as examples, but also warns the GM and players not to strain the definition of "reasonably" too hard, meaning that if it makes sense and isn't abused, then yes, you can let Object Creation create swords. 
 
I recommend buying the APGs if you don't have them, even if you don't use 6th edition, because they're pretty applicable to 5th as well.  
 

I was thinking the same Power construct, but decided not to suggest it for fear of it seeming too radical or "kludgy." I should have known better -- these are Hero gamers.
 
But remember, EDM is just the mechanic. The Special Effect can look exactly as you describe it.
 
OTOH that Power construct requires a defined Defense. I would suggest that since since your character's patron goddess is of Chaos, that any barrier or restraint specifically consecrated to a god of Order, or spell drawing on the power of Order, would be immune to this unbinding spell.

Good thread.  I'd go with small AoE Transform of Things that Restrain to Things that Don't Restrain.  So cages fall apart, manacles fall off, coffins open, etc.

I think something important to bare in mind, even a 'straight jacket' like class and race game like D&D has been allowing custimization for years. Every since 2nd edition, they've allowed tweaks and choices that meaningfully impact that kind of characters you play (kits), and of course this ballooned in 3.X and continued in 4th and 5th. Players may not be able to build anything they want, but there are so many options, it's not difficult to build something approximating the image they have in their minds eye. Also by presenting cool bits to chop and change around, it gives players options that 'next time I want to play an X, Y, or Z'. I think Killer Shrike's online Hero campaign is actually an excellent example of this...he's created so many magic systems and character types in his Urban Fantasy game, that if I bought it as a book I would be drooling at the opportunity to play all the different builds. I don't know why, but for me at least, this is more engaging than knowing ahead of time I could just make anything I want. And I'd say I'm not alone in this, based on the success of games that do just this. 
 
I only mention this because a lot of people who seem to be talking about the surperiority of HERO over D&D and it's ilk seem to forget or be unaware that they long since moved away from 1E's 'every fighter is the same except for their magic items' model. Note, I'm not saying this about you Hugh, just your first comment reminded me that the needle has shifted a loooong way since 1E, even if the 'build it yourself' mechanic isn't present. 
 
So a PbHS approach could work by presenting new and fun options, pre-created for players to pick from, but let's not pretend that the competition is still treading the same ground it did 40 years ago. 

It's a spell of unbinding.  "Binding" can have a metaphysical meaning in terms of the magic system, and the spell of unbinding does exactly what it says.  Tywyll, is this a reasonably accurate description?  
 
If it unbinds binding spells, not just physical bonds, then you might want to add a Dispel component against spells using Entangle, Barrier, and Telekinesis.  
 
More generally, usually DEF, BODY, and/or dice of damage are the way environmental effects interact, and those are easy enough to oppose with Powers including Dispel.  

I never said the special effects justify any kind of mechanical handwave. Of course he will have to buy some kind of strange molecule of Linked powers in order to achieve his desired game effect. All I was saying is that the special effect is cool. It's delicious and beautiful. It's magical. If feels like something a powerful wizard from some classic fantasy would do. Not hard magic, but soft (but in the context of Hero, of course it would be "hard").

"Reinard heard footsteps coming from the dark hallway at the end of which his cell was located. His heart dropped when he saw Dohl Faendar, the wizard. 'You're time has not yet come.' he said, and Reinard's cell door fell ajar."

It's mysterious and badass and is a black box because magic (at times, depending on the setting) is a black box. "Thaumaturgy" literally translates to "Miracle Working." It's a miracle. To me, SFX doesn't mean, "What does it look like?" but "What is the concept you're trying to capture?" I think the concept here is perfectly strong enough to justify building such a unified power as "picks locks and escapes entangles."

I agree with Chris as to the metaphysical definition, particularly if one is dealing with "magic," where the logic of it is imaginative rather than realistic.
 
For example, the spell could draw on the power of the Archetype of Chaos, to counter any manifestation of Order which restricts a being's freedom to act.

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more with "This spell has no clear special effect." It's an incredibly elegant special effect, especially because it is magic and not superpowers. The spell isn't some kind of idiot lockpicking ghost, or merely "telekinesis with fine control so he can pick the lock without lockpick, oooooh." Those obviously do not free you from an entangle. No, the spell could be called, "Liberate." It just... liberates things. Locks unlock themselves, ropes untie themselves, chains break, the spell liberates anything which is physically confined in some sort of concrete, physical way. It can't change the intentions of captors or make them let you go, it can't magically teleport a priceless jewel out of a guarded museum, and it can't emancipate you in the eyes of the law. But if you were trapped in a steel cage welded shut, it could break the cage. If you were buried alive, it would make the soil sink around you and the casket come unnailed. This is a wicked cool spell.

No, that's not right at all. These are people who have roleplayed numerous systems for years. But they are also adults who with limited time, jobs, and other constraints. Being dismissive of player realities won't help sell the game. 
 
As many have said in this thread, throwing a tool kit out for people doesn't really work (or else we wouldn't be having this conversation and HERO would be the RPG leader). Creativity thrives on limitations, check any creative writing course or book on the subject. Analysis Paralysis is a real thing, and it limits the acceptance of this and any other open source systems. We have to take that into account if we are going to attempt to broaden the game's appeal. 

I'm agreeing with your idea, just offering up ways to make it (possibly) more appealing to mass market. Namely, have the default rules for modern day gaming in one book with predefinied equipment with hidden builds, etc. Dump all the nonsense like building bases and vehicles and the power system.
 
BUT...
 
Also include some default settings in the book. Yes, an urban fantasy campaign setting could take up a whole book...but also it could be done in 20 pages or less. You exist in a world with monsters that you secretly hunt. Here's your organization, here's some monster stats, here's 10 spells a black witch could learn. That's enough to start playing with. As with everything else in the book, you don't let the player or GM need to pursue their version, you decide for them.
 
Ditto with a Zombie outbreak setting. Here's how it started, spread, and here's several zombie stats. Few roleplayers need more than that to grok a zombie setting. 
 
Etc, etc, etc. Some I'll agree are too complicated for this approach, but others are so much part of the cultural landscape that I don't think they need more than 20-30 pages to be playable. 
 
These mini settings don't have to be big to get people playing, but they do allow the rules to be used by people who would pass over a game set in the modern day that most people don't seem to be interested in.  I suppose that, if this were a kickstarter, these could be the stretchgoals, but I really think you want to have this in the book to appeal to a broader audiance. There is little reason to make an easily digestible and approachable version of HERO if no one picks it up because they aren't interested in the default setting. 

I think its worth mentioning that GURPS has lost a dramatic amount of market share, at least according to Steve Jackson's qurterly reports. It seems systems to build games are suffering all over. 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. After the initial charge the weapons were typically discarded or jerked out of their user's hands/stuck in a dead body and they switched to regular side arms. 
 
 
I have no problem with half your str being used for computing damage purposes. My problem is how that interacts with Str Min and the additional OCV penalty it will almost always create. 
 
See to me this feels like they wanted to bring damage in line with unarmed versions of the maneuver and then someone tacked on the idea of comparing it to STR Min, when that wasn't meant to be used this way. Treating the reduced STR as though the character were actually weaker rather than just a damage equation, creating this absurd breakdown. 
 
 
Yes, he is greatly disadvantaging himself for almost no gain...not only is he extremely unlikely to hit, he is also opening himself to counter attack and leaving himself wide open. There is almost no case on the battle-field where this would be worth the risk, making it a garbage maneuver. 
 
 
In that situation you are trading damage for movement. That's sometimes a fair trade because some damage is better than no damage. But if you can't inflict that damage or your chance is miniscule, then you are getting movement for nothing and opening yourself up to counterattack that will most likely succeed. It is not a reasonable trade.  You are better off just taking a full move and not attacking.
 
 
It's a bit iffy on moving through an enemies hex. I certainly wouldn't allow it as a GM, not in a heroic game. 
 
 
No, that is not the case. If I have STR 17 and wield that medium spear, having it dropped to half gives me a -1 penalty when weilding said spear. 
 
 
But you also have your weight and physical momentem...being run into by a linebacker hurts more then if they step into you, and that extra force would be just as dangerous with a sharp pointy thing held in front of them.
 
Anyway, I think we should just agree to disagree. I think this is a stupid rule and I'm not going to use it, while you clearly are happy to use it as is. I see no benefit in continuing to rehash the arguement.