Killer Shrike

I guess I should have read to the end before posting.
 
Now, I see the smiley face and acknowledge that you mean this as a joke, but to me it still very much seems to be an expression of something you actually feel to some degree. Coercing others to conform to your preferences with the threat of violence isn't a great way to be. Maybe take a beat and consider if you yourself have some control freak impulses to overcome. You'll be a better GM, and more importantly a better person, if you exorcise the impulse to use force to bludgeon people into doing what you want them to do.

Yes. I generally like it when players rotate characters. When I get the chance to play, I rotate characters as befits the narrative. As the GM I do enforce character shtick / niche protection, i.e. I wouldn't allow a player to make a new character that just steps on another existing PC's niche. And of course the introduction of the new character and exit of the old should be bent to fit the continuity of the campaign rather than the other way around.
 
As long as it isn't super disruptive, like every session of two, I see it as a beneficial thing. It can be an opportunity to extend the larger story of the campaign, reinvigorate the group dynamic, provide new hooks and / or pull in new antagonists, and so on.
 
 
Try not to make everything about you. Are the players there to serve you? Or are you a group of peers getting together to enjoy a collaborative creative activity? 
 
In the end, its just about having fun together. If any of the players, including the GM, are not having fun then either adjustments need to be made or one or more people should leave the group.
 
If this player isn't having fun playing the character they have, and them wanting to change their character is making things not fun for you, pick a path and go down it:
Player keeps character, possibly with some changes to the character or the campaign or both. Player makes new character Player leaves group GM ends campaign My experience in life is that most people problems start and end with a failure to communicate effectively. Try talking to the player to understand why they want to change characters, why that bothers you, and then figure out together which of the above four choices is best to your situation.
 
 
Right and wrong are irrelevant to subjective / emotional things. I would ask instead, is it productive for you to think / feel this way? Are your feelings making things better or worse? Seems to me that it is making things worse. So, flip the script and find a more productive footing to proceed from.

You can accomplish the equivalent of a package deal bonus by allowing a custom enhancer, which is what I generally do in 6e. Such a custom enhancer costs 3 points, and reduces the cost of each ability allowed to be taken within it by 1 point. Just be consistent about what you allow them to apply to, and the scope of what you'll allow a given enhancer to cover (in fantasy and sci-fi, race and profession serve as easily applied bounds).
 
For instance...this character has one for race and one for profession; currently they are just breaking even on the Rogue enhancer (but can still get some future net gain there in future if they stick to concept and buy 1 or more abilities within it):

 
A different character leans heavily into their race and class, and gets more squeeze from it (but is putting less points into stats and misc abilities):

 
This character is fairly evenly spread across enhancers for race & class, getting a small net benefit from each:

Have all your character's start with 8 in each main stat, rather then 10. Selling back those points gets them 14 extra character points to build their characters with.  This will provide more of a spread in their starting characteristics and allow them more points  to individualize their builds from each other. 
 

I'm going to try to tease this apart a bit...
 
I've gathered that you are a pre-4e guy from other posts. I personally did not play 1e thru 3e. I do own some of the games of that era which I acquired later as a curiosity, but never played them. Of the ones I am passingly familiar with, they were definitely games, what I would today call a "boutique game" in the sense that they catered to a specific niche or subgenre. But regardless of labeling or categorization, they were definitely games first, with rules to support the playing of those games.
 
4e went a different direction and harvested those games to create a generic, universal, role playing system. Perhaps they realized that some other game company had kind of eaten some of their lunch, but I digress. We'll just call it a "universal" game system.
 
Universal game systems are not games. They are not meant to be played as a game. They have no default content or bespoke mechanics for specific special snowflakes suitable for a specific setting and nothing else. Instead, they focus on providing a framework of rules to be applied to conceivably any game in a variety of genres (perhaps all genres depending on the ambitions of the game designers). They are fundamentally aimed primarily at GM's in the more old school role as combination amateur game designers and arbitrators (as opposed to the more mainstream later trend towards GM as merely facilitators). Their "value proposition" is not "this a fun game in and of itself that you can just buy and run sessions with in our prepackaged setting using our prepackaged content". The value proposition is "you can use this framework to make and run any kind of roleplaying game you want to, and you and your players won't have to learn a different rules system every time you switch genres or settings". 
 
So, the purpose of the core rulebook of a universal system is not to be fun or fluffy or flavorful, its purpose is to be functional and balanced and broadly applicable. Its primary audience is not players or even casual GM's (who, really, would be better off playing a more prepackaged game) but rather propeller head GM's who specifically seek out universal systems because they place a high value on a toolkit type of system that provides them with the tools to craft the games they want to run. 
 
In a universal game system product line, genre books and settings and supplements are the proper home for the fun and fluffy and flavorful. 
 
Now, as many (including myself) have said over the years, DoJ were slow to cater to the market of GM's and players who wanted a prepackaged setting with sufficient rules to run with bundled with IP. Looked at more charitably they stuck with their core competency and were quite successful at it for a good stretch of time. DoJ turned out a staggering volume of mostly high quality products for many years. I've always been impressed with the output and overall consistency. However, sadly, excellence does not always translate into profit. There's a reason why there are fewer top quality steakhouses than there are fast food joints. Catering to the lowest common denominator tends to pay off bigger than going the other way. Alas and alack, we live in an imperfect world.
 
 
Yes, I remember the Fuzion system. It was not a HS game, it was Champion IP on a different game system. There were actually some good ideas to be found in it, but the execution was bungled spectacularly. Apparently the kinks in the Fuzion system did get smoothed out and it is used by a number of boutique games...for some reason it took root in the anime space.
 
 
Are you grounding this in a comparison between 5e and 6e or between pre-4e and 6e?
 
Because, if you are coming from a 5e to 6e perspective, this just doesn't track. Most of 6e is copy and pasted from 5e and then elaborated on with FAQ entries and posts from the rules questions subforum. The actual systemic changes are few. Compared to edition shifts in most other roleplaying games, where often a new edition is nearly or entirely a new game, the shift from 5e to 6e is relatively mild.
 
 
This has been the case as of the publishing of 4e, so nearly 30 years running now, and it was directly stated in the 4e rulebook that this was the game designer's intent. This is a direct quote from the 4e rulebook:
 
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The main object of the game is for the players and the GM
to have fun. We like to think of the Hero System as a Game
Construction Set, where each GM can create his own unique
campaign world. Perhaps it's based on a favorite novel or
movie, or a combination of several sources, or a completely
original vision. In any case, the Hero System lets you
customize it.

Designing a set of roleplaying rules is a process of making
numerous decisions. How do we represent combat? What
numbers do we use to determine your chance to hit? In
constructing these rules, we used a relatively simple set of
guidelines. We wanted to keep the mechanics simple,
encourage roleplaying, and create a flavor similar to that in
books, movies, and comics. Most important was giving the
game the "flavor" of a good action novel or a movie. When
realism conflicted with that goal, we put realism in second
place. Then we tried to reduce the rules to the simplest set
of numbers we could come up with, so that the game
mechanics wouldn't get in the way of having fun. Finally, we
tried to put in rules that would encourage storytelling on the
part of the players and the GM.

Above all, we wanted the Hero System to be flexible and
open-ended - capable of simulating any real or fictional
situation. This flexibility means that there is potential for
"minimaxing" and distorting the rules. We could have put in
a lot more "don'ts", but that's not the way we wanted the rules
to be. We would rather let you make your own decisions
about what is permissible. If you want to allow the characters
to travel through time, it's silly for us to say "no you can't."
After all, you've paid your money for the game, so why
shouldn't you alter it any way you please? As a consequence,
we've asked for a lot of decision-making from the
Game Master. It may be difficult for you to tell your friends
that no, they can't have a character with Extra-Dimensional
Movement or Precognition. But they'll probably understand
if you explain your reasons for your decision.

This leads to the most important design idea we worked
toward: that we wanted a game that could stimulate everyone's
creativity. The HERO system is intended to be a tool
for you to use in designing your own campaign game. We
hope you'll use it that way.
 
 
 
Um, yeah, it's a thing for playable-games-with-settings using a universal rules system to indicate something like "powered by Fate!" or "GURPS Wildcards" or "d20 compatible" whatever. This has been a thing nearly as long as there have been universal systems. It's exactly the same as a video game using a particular generic video game engine, like Unreal or Unity, saying so on its marketing and a loading screen.
 
 
You know you don't have to read it cover to cover, right? Just read the chapter intros and the "characters and the world" chapter, and the first few pages of the combat chapter. Then pick a character you are familiar with from entertainment or an earlier edition game and then try to make a 6e version of that character. There are lists at the beginning-ish of each relevant section of the book that you can quickly peruse, then pop over to the write ups for things that seem likely and read those snippets. You will likely have a working character pretty quickly. Make a second character in the same way; should go a little faster now. Then set up a little scenario where one of the characters you made attacks the other character you made, working thru the necessary combat rules as you go.
 
Some games I just skim as a scholarly exercise looking for interesting bits of game design, but if I decide to give a game a try this is what I do to learn the rudiments of the system quickly. If I like it, I'll go from there and deepen my knowledge. If I don't I move on.
 
 
Abstract base mechanics that you modify with pros and cons to model a particular effect is the essence of the Hero System power model and is kind of the thing it is recognized as innovating. So...you're saying you don't like what many would consider to be a fundamental feature of the game system.
 
 
Not sure if serious. Yes, a generic game system is generic. On purpose. 
 
 
So, yeah, I think you might like Basic if you did like 4e. It's a sort of spiritual successor of Hero System #500. 
 
But, I'm actually surprised that you are a Hero System gamer...because you seem like you'd prefer something more packaged or simplified. I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean it in a congenial there's probably a game system out there you might be happier with sort of way.
 
Although, maybe that game is Champions 3e and you've already found it.
 
 
Ya, I saw Sean related activity. Having been gone myself I didn't realize he had been gone as well. 
 
I've been working and raising kids and playing other games, mostly. I'm currently on a hiatus between gigs, so sort of revisiting some old stomping grounds. 
 
 
Yes, I noticed your posts. I didn't have anything new to contribute so I didn't comment, but I appreciate hearing when people get value out of some of my contributions. I'm glad it is working out. My players always enjoyed it. 
 
 
It's definitely more appropriate to a campaign with a cinematic or superheroic tone.
 
 
Well, for heroic / more realistic campaigns I find that a Skill Maxima is useful to discourage over specialization. It has proven to work well in heroic games. I think I first encountered the idea in the Valdorian Age.  A Skill Maxima works exactly like a Characteristic Maxima; a character can buy up to the maxima at normal price, and then pays a premium to go over the maxima.
 
On that note, when laying out the campaign guidelines for a new campaign I use a "paradigm" chart of options with more cinematic / superheroic things on the left and more gritty / heroic things on the right. I fill it in opting for one side or the other to help dial in the setting. One of the line items is "Skill Maxima". Here is an example of one:
 
http://www.killershrike.com/HereThereBeMonsters/Paradigm_Assumptions.aspx
 
 
You, drift off subject? Never! ?
 
 
Ok, I'll admit that I laughed a bit. Solid burn. However, I would point out that 6e is simple, to the extent that any version of the Hero System can claim that. In the same way that geometry is simple. You may have fallen in love with geometry via Euclid but find topology or differential geometry to be hopelessly embellished; never the less they are still simple in their fundamentals and extend geometry's power to handle more complex problems.

Having read 6e, I can confirm the implication that it covers more situations. However, as the Hero System is a toolkit GM house-ruling and tinkering is ever present and a feature rather than a sign of a flaw; in that vein 6e also has more dials and levers a GM can spin and pull so it is also better (in the sense of more configurable) in that regard.
 
 
Actually, I found that 6e was slightly simpler (or at least smoother / less friction prone) to use in play after we got over the initial "new edition" bumps of re-familiarization. The main thing I noticed is that rules arguments became very rare; people came to trust and expect that the rules covered something and thus the first impulse was to look something up rather than argue about it; the detailed indexes (also a 5e feature) helped enormously in this regard, and more often than not the rules did indeed cover it (to a much greater degree than was true in earlier editions) or at least had enough coverage that an obvious conclusion could be drawn.
 
Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problems making rulings. I don't do it as much as I used to as I'm older and not as quick on my mental feet as I used to be, but I'm the sort of GM who is comfortable just winging it or making things up as we go for lighthearted or non-serialized sessions. I never struggled to make rulings in this or any other system, but I would much rather focus on keeping the story moving so every ruling I don't have to make during actual gameplay is welcome. 6e was a marked improvement over 5e and 4e in this area thanks to the rigorous diligence and attention to detail of the author and presumably editor(s) and playtester(s). 
 
 
The only thing that I can see 6e making harder during character creation would be if you were trying to duplicate a power that had been removed. Otherwise, not so much; it's the same as it ever was but with more control over characteristics, and more options included in the core rules that previously required ownership of a supplement to know about.
 
I don't exactly lack character creation experience; I've written up an absurd number of characters for the Hero System over the years. It's actually kind of depressing, to consider how many man hours of my finite existence on this planet were allocated to that task. I can't speak for others, but for my own part and from my own experience, making characters in 6e is overall easier than making characters in 5e and 4e. We're not talking about massively easier (nothing can compete with Hero Designer on that front), but an overall improvement. One of the things that contributes to this is that it is much less necessary to flip through a pile of supplements looking for an obscure modifier you recollect seeing in a genre book or sidebar example. There is still some of that, but the consolidation of such things from 5e into the core rulebook makes it a much less common occurrence. Additionally, there are subtle improvements here and there within power write ups that ease usage of them. There isn't really a killer feature or example to point to, it's more of a dusting and tidying up of the place, a Martha Stewartization of sorts. Now, some might make the "polishing the brass on the Titanic" reference here, but that would just be mean spirited.

The GM can veto anything they don't want in their games. If a couple of options that one doesn't have to allow are enough to prevent one from using an entire edition of a game, I guess I just don't understand that.

Yeo means young, thus Yeoman originally literally meant "young man" before it started taking on other meanings. 
 
If I was going with the idea of gentry as landed estate holders who lack peerage, and wanted a some-status social class below that but above serfs / peasants / no-status people, I would go with the classic term commoners, which is also a gender neutral term.
 
For a step in between gentry and commoners, people who have some land but are poorly integrated into the dominant feudal hierarchy I would go with the term freeholder. I would expect to find such freeholders at the fringes of the nation, in land that was acquired, annexed, or engulfed by an expanding feudal society but not outright conquered and thus was never fully integrated into the vassal / peerage model of the original nation and conquered lands where land was taken and reallocated. 
 
 
 

A ) I think 6e is the best version of the game mechanically, but 4e was perhaps the funnest / most bang-for-the-buck version. I don't think it really matters though; if a competent GM is running a Hero System game of any edition, interested players will likely enjoy it.
 
B ) I don't think the Hero System is very well suited to play by post. I ran a superhero based PbP on Hero Central back in the day and even with the very solid software support of HC it was a slog. It took way more time and effort to run that game than any face to face game I've ever run in any system. The precise timing and granular tactical interactions of Hero System combat which make it such a good battle simulator in synchronous f2f play are a major impediment in asynchronous PbP play. One Turn of Hero System combat played out segment by segment in initiative order could take an inordinate amount of days to play out via PbP, and almost all the tension and excitement gets leached right out of it.
 
I would recommend going the other way, using a looser resolution with much less granular simulation bias, for PbP.
 
 
Having said that, I did split the difference and write up a variant of Hero System for use in play by post, where publicly the game is much more narrative with characters defined by their players solely in terms of numerically rated Traits. However, in the background the GM actually uses the Hero System as the game resolution system. Turn by turn, you open a time window for players to announce their intentions asynchronously as they are able to post; any players who cannot default to the most sensible / typical thing their character tends to do per your discretion...gotta keep things moving along or the entire enterprise grinds to a halt. Afterwards you the GM collate all the info from the players plus the NPC's and just crank out a full Turn of combat in initiative order, interpreting the players' declared intents and using a bit of handwavium and common sense to gap fill as necessary. Synthesize / summarize the outcome of all that Turn of interaction to create the next chunk of narrative to post, stripped of the mechanical details and focusing on the results.
 
 
Why go to such trouble? Well, it gives you the GM a solid framework to fall back on of Hero System mechanics to prevent being arbitrary, inconsistent, or biased. But it keeps the players out of the sausage factory and keeps the PbP side of it as simple as possible. If it sounds interesting to you, here's the write up:
 
https://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/Concepts/TraitDrivenHERO.aspx
 

Sound what you want would be an extra phase.  That would mean you take a full phase and on your next phase you get the benefit of the skill levels.  
 
You could also do it as an extra segment for a -1/2.  That would mean you would be able to attack at the end on the next segment.  So, if you acted in 3 you could attack at the end of 4 after everyone had gone. Since the skill levels are not an attack you can do “other things” while it activates.  In this case you delay your attack until the skill levels activate and take the attack at that point.    
 
You may not even need to purchase anything.  A character can already combine the maneuvers Set and Brace for a +1 OCV and +2 OCV to offset ranged modifiers without spending any points.  This takes a full phase and put the character at ½ DCV.  
 

Me-from-the-past included some useful notes on the subject here, back in the day:
 
https://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/GeneralSpellRestrictions.aspx#LINGERING
 
LINGERING This option is in effect in my campaigns On a related tangent to Physical Manifestation, some attack Spells bring into being an object which may be used to convey an attack repeatedly, such as a Magical Effect that "summons" or "creates" a "weapon" like a Sword. However, most Attack Powers are Instant in nature, and thus don't lend themselves to bringing a reusable "weapon" into effect. While this could theoretically be represented as a Constant Power construct using the FOCI or Restrainable rules to represent the "weapon", it makes for a relatively clumsy Power construct. Fortunately Fantasy HERO provides an ideal solution in the form of a new Advantage called Lingering detailed on page 257 of the Fantasy HERO Genre Book for HERO System 5th Edition. Lingering may only be applied to Instant powers and varies in its value based upon how long the Power sticks around on the Time Chart. Without impinging on the IP of HERO Games, suffice to say that a Lingering Instant Power may be used or not used on successive Phases, targeted anew each time, for the duration of the Lingering Advantage. By default the Lingering attack is perceivable for the duration (a variation of Invisible Power Effects may be applied to avoid this), and the SFX of the attack may be defined creatively as usual for the HERO System. Thus, a "Summon Sword" Spell may be defined as a Lingering Hand Killing Attack, and the SFX of the Spell can be defined as "A sword appears and may be used to strike at opponents".  The "sword" can't be taken away from the Character or attacked directly (unless Physical Manifestation is also taken for the Spell), and really doesn't exist in any meaningful fashion, but has the appearance of being a physical sword. USING LINGERING Lingering is a fabulously useful Power Advantage for creating Spells with and I recommend its use, both in and out of conjunction with Physical Manifestation. However, there have been several clarifying points made by Steve Long regarding the Advantage on the HERO System Rules Questions Forum, available in the HERO System Rules FAQ for Fantasy HERO. The most significant ruling made thus far as pertains to the content of this website is the relation of Lingering and Charges; Lingering qualifies to unlock the "Continuing" option for Charges, just as if it were a Constant or Continuous Power. This feature of Lingering is used heavily in the Spells provided on this website and should be noted. Lingering FAQ Entries (as of August 2, 2004) Q: Regarding the Lingering Advantage on FH 257: If the spell is in a Multipower and the Multipower is switched to another slot, does the Lingering power remain in effect for its defined duration? Does a Lingering spell automatically become Persistent? How does Lingering interact with Charges? Can characters apply the Uncontrolled Advantage to powers bought with the Lingering Advantage? A: As a default, no switching to another Power Framework slot cancels the spell. The GM is free to change that rule for a particular spell or magic system if he sees fit. No. If a power has Charges, each use ends after one Phase passes, even if its also a Lingering power. If a character wants to have a Lingering power that has Charges and for which each activation lasts for the specified Lingering duration, he must make them Continuing Charges with a duration equal to the Lingering duration. Since the characters already paying extra for Lingering, (a) he is allowed to apply Continuing Charges to an Instant Power, and (b) you should cap the value of Continuing Charges at -0. The GM can change either of these rules if he prefers otherwise for reasons of campaign balance or the like. No. REF: Lingering, consult Page 257 Fantasy HERO for HERO System 5th Edition

I wrote up my thoughts on Damage Negation back when 6e dropped; you can read them here:
 
https://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/GeneralThoughtsOnDamageNegation.aspx
 
There are uses for it; I made particularly successful use of it in an urban fantasy campaign. Some (not all) types of supernaturals included some Damage Negation which made them very resistant to mundane weapons but not so much vs "blessed", "consecrated", "enchanted" items or the claws and fangs of some other supernaturals which included some amount of Reduced Negation. YMMV.

I wrote up my thoughts on Damage Negation back when 6e dropped; you can read them here:
 
https://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/GeneralThoughtsOnDamageNegation.aspx
 
There are uses for it; I made particularly successful use of it in an urban fantasy campaign. Some (not all) types of supernaturals included some Damage Negation which made them very resistant to mundane weapons but not so much vs "blessed", "consecrated", "enchanted" items or the claws and fangs of some other supernaturals which included some amount of Reduced Negation. YMMV.

A ) I think 6e is the best version of the game mechanically, but 4e was perhaps the funnest / most bang-for-the-buck version. I don't think it really matters though; if a competent GM is running a Hero System game of any edition, interested players will likely enjoy it.
 
B ) I don't think the Hero System is very well suited to play by post. I ran a superhero based PbP on Hero Central back in the day and even with the very solid software support of HC it was a slog. It took way more time and effort to run that game than any face to face game I've ever run in any system. The precise timing and granular tactical interactions of Hero System combat which make it such a good battle simulator in synchronous f2f play are a major impediment in asynchronous PbP play. One Turn of Hero System combat played out segment by segment in initiative order could take an inordinate amount of days to play out via PbP, and almost all the tension and excitement gets leached right out of it.
 
I would recommend going the other way, using a looser resolution with much less granular simulation bias, for PbP.
 
 
Having said that, I did split the difference and write up a variant of Hero System for use in play by post, where publicly the game is much more narrative with characters defined by their players solely in terms of numerically rated Traits. However, in the background the GM actually uses the Hero System as the game resolution system. Turn by turn, you open a time window for players to announce their intentions asynchronously as they are able to post; any players who cannot default to the most sensible / typical thing their character tends to do per your discretion...gotta keep things moving along or the entire enterprise grinds to a halt. Afterwards you the GM collate all the info from the players plus the NPC's and just crank out a full Turn of combat in initiative order, interpreting the players' declared intents and using a bit of handwavium and common sense to gap fill as necessary. Synthesize / summarize the outcome of all that Turn of interaction to create the next chunk of narrative to post, stripped of the mechanical details and focusing on the results.
 
 
Why go to such trouble? Well, it gives you the GM a solid framework to fall back on of Hero System mechanics to prevent being arbitrary, inconsistent, or biased. But it keeps the players out of the sausage factory and keeps the PbP side of it as simple as possible. If it sounds interesting to you, here's the write up:
 
https://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/Concepts/TraitDrivenHERO.aspx
 

I think that is an excellent analysis.

A ) I think 6e is the best version of the game mechanically, but 4e was perhaps the funnest / most bang-for-the-buck version. I don't think it really matters though; if a competent GM is running a Hero System game of any edition, interested players will likely enjoy it.
 
B ) I don't think the Hero System is very well suited to play by post. I ran a superhero based PbP on Hero Central back in the day and even with the very solid software support of HC it was a slog. It took way more time and effort to run that game than any face to face game I've ever run in any system. The precise timing and granular tactical interactions of Hero System combat which make it such a good battle simulator in synchronous f2f play are a major impediment in asynchronous PbP play. One Turn of Hero System combat played out segment by segment in initiative order could take an inordinate amount of days to play out via PbP, and almost all the tension and excitement gets leached right out of it.
 
I would recommend going the other way, using a looser resolution with much less granular simulation bias, for PbP.
 
 
Having said that, I did split the difference and write up a variant of Hero System for use in play by post, where publicly the game is much more narrative with characters defined by their players solely in terms of numerically rated Traits. However, in the background the GM actually uses the Hero System as the game resolution system. Turn by turn, you open a time window for players to announce their intentions asynchronously as they are able to post; any players who cannot default to the most sensible / typical thing their character tends to do per your discretion...gotta keep things moving along or the entire enterprise grinds to a halt. Afterwards you the GM collate all the info from the players plus the NPC's and just crank out a full Turn of combat in initiative order, interpreting the players' declared intents and using a bit of handwavium and common sense to gap fill as necessary. Synthesize / summarize the outcome of all that Turn of interaction to create the next chunk of narrative to post, stripped of the mechanical details and focusing on the results.
 
 
Why go to such trouble? Well, it gives you the GM a solid framework to fall back on of Hero System mechanics to prevent being arbitrary, inconsistent, or biased. But it keeps the players out of the sausage factory and keeps the PbP side of it as simple as possible. If it sounds interesting to you, here's the write up:
 
https://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/Concepts/TraitDrivenHERO.aspx
 

A ) I think 6e is the best version of the game mechanically, but 4e was perhaps the funnest / most bang-for-the-buck version. I don't think it really matters though; if a competent GM is running a Hero System game of any edition, interested players will likely enjoy it.
 
B ) I don't think the Hero System is very well suited to play by post. I ran a superhero based PbP on Hero Central back in the day and even with the very solid software support of HC it was a slog. It took way more time and effort to run that game than any face to face game I've ever run in any system. The precise timing and granular tactical interactions of Hero System combat which make it such a good battle simulator in synchronous f2f play are a major impediment in asynchronous PbP play. One Turn of Hero System combat played out segment by segment in initiative order could take an inordinate amount of days to play out via PbP, and almost all the tension and excitement gets leached right out of it.
 
I would recommend going the other way, using a looser resolution with much less granular simulation bias, for PbP.
 
 
Having said that, I did split the difference and write up a variant of Hero System for use in play by post, where publicly the game is much more narrative with characters defined by their players solely in terms of numerically rated Traits. However, in the background the GM actually uses the Hero System as the game resolution system. Turn by turn, you open a time window for players to announce their intentions asynchronously as they are able to post; any players who cannot default to the most sensible / typical thing their character tends to do per your discretion...gotta keep things moving along or the entire enterprise grinds to a halt. Afterwards you the GM collate all the info from the players plus the NPC's and just crank out a full Turn of combat in initiative order, interpreting the players' declared intents and using a bit of handwavium and common sense to gap fill as necessary. Synthesize / summarize the outcome of all that Turn of interaction to create the next chunk of narrative to post, stripped of the mechanical details and focusing on the results.
 
 
Why go to such trouble? Well, it gives you the GM a solid framework to fall back on of Hero System mechanics to prevent being arbitrary, inconsistent, or biased. But it keeps the players out of the sausage factory and keeps the PbP side of it as simple as possible. If it sounds interesting to you, here's the write up:
 
https://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/Concepts/TraitDrivenHERO.aspx
 

A ) I think 6e is the best version of the game mechanically, but 4e was perhaps the funnest / most bang-for-the-buck version. I don't think it really matters though; if a competent GM is running a Hero System game of any edition, interested players will likely enjoy it.
 
B ) I don't think the Hero System is very well suited to play by post. I ran a superhero based PbP on Hero Central back in the day and even with the very solid software support of HC it was a slog. It took way more time and effort to run that game than any face to face game I've ever run in any system. The precise timing and granular tactical interactions of Hero System combat which make it such a good battle simulator in synchronous f2f play are a major impediment in asynchronous PbP play. One Turn of Hero System combat played out segment by segment in initiative order could take an inordinate amount of days to play out via PbP, and almost all the tension and excitement gets leached right out of it.
 
I would recommend going the other way, using a looser resolution with much less granular simulation bias, for PbP.
 
 
Having said that, I did split the difference and write up a variant of Hero System for use in play by post, where publicly the game is much more narrative with characters defined by their players solely in terms of numerically rated Traits. However, in the background the GM actually uses the Hero System as the game resolution system. Turn by turn, you open a time window for players to announce their intentions asynchronously as they are able to post; any players who cannot default to the most sensible / typical thing their character tends to do per your discretion...gotta keep things moving along or the entire enterprise grinds to a halt. Afterwards you the GM collate all the info from the players plus the NPC's and just crank out a full Turn of combat in initiative order, interpreting the players' declared intents and using a bit of handwavium and common sense to gap fill as necessary. Synthesize / summarize the outcome of all that Turn of interaction to create the next chunk of narrative to post, stripped of the mechanical details and focusing on the results.
 
 
Why go to such trouble? Well, it gives you the GM a solid framework to fall back on of Hero System mechanics to prevent being arbitrary, inconsistent, or biased. But it keeps the players out of the sausage factory and keeps the PbP side of it as simple as possible. If it sounds interesting to you, here's the write up:
 
https://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/Concepts/TraitDrivenHERO.aspx
 

There was a time in Marvel Comics where Hank Pym ran around in a red jumpsuit acting as a pure gadgeteer, via the shtick of carrying lots of shrunk down gadgets / stuff in his pockets that he could make big at need, which was fun. Older Hank Pym in the Ant-Man movies reinterprets this pretty effectively. 

There was a time in Marvel Comics where Hank Pym ran around in a red jumpsuit acting as a pure gadgeteer, via the shtick of carrying lots of shrunk down gadgets / stuff in his pockets that he could make big at need, which was fun. Older Hank Pym in the Ant-Man movies reinterprets this pretty effectively. 

As a 90 AP power would cost 120 points in this campaign, I would simply require that it be considered 120 points of the pool.  The other players either paid 120 points for their own 90 AP powers or they don't have any such powers.
 
 
This is a consistent issue for Hero if players are engaged in an arm's race with the GM rather than building interesting characters and expecting to be challenged in-game.  Both characters in your example have one less power they can use while the niche power is in play, so they both have reduced efficacy.
 
 
If my character spends 150 points and buys three 50 AP attacks, they can use those three attacks together as a Combined Attack.  This character spent 150 points on a pool and 15 points on three slots (at least).  Why is it unfair that he can use his 165 points to do the same combined attack someone who spent 150 points can do? 
 
 
6e changed that rule.  I recall specifically suggesting that change back in the day.  If the pool allows a Blast, Flight and a Force Field to work at the same time, why should it not allow a Flash, Blast and Drain to work at the same time?
 
As you note "one huge pool" is not a lot different from "three smaller pools".  If there is no issue with the latter, there should be no issue with the former.
 
I recall reading the first edition of Mutants and Masterminds and thinking they lifted a lot from Hero/Champions.  One thing they did not lift, and Hero should, was the suggestion that, as a GM, you should be looking for ways to say "yes", not reasons to say "no".  It sounds like you are not concerned this build will be unbalanced.  I tend to agree.  He will be very flexible, and likely should consider evolving this into a VPP.  So what?
 
If he were really looking to abuse this, I would expect him to structure for 180 points to have three max AP powers going at once.  He has already reduced his raw power, offsetting his flexibility.

Sure, if you felt the need to. Technically, Characteristics are Persistent already, though obviously STR is odd in that it also costs END to use w/o 0 END applied to it.
 
As far as "invisible", it's really the _items_ in the bag that are not "visible" in the sense that the bag is opaque and blocks line of sight. The item itself is still visible if you can establish line of sight, as is the magical container it is stored within.
 
Do you make a vehicle with a trunk or other storage compartment take "invisible" on its strength because people can't normally see what's in them? What about a normal mundane backpack?
 
For me it's a "meh", especially given I use Equipment Pools for fantasy. For some mundane items I don't even bother w/ a write up...like "Rope" or whatever and just assess some nominal point cost because the discrepancy of all the things they can be used for and the point cost of simulating all of that via detailed modeling using the Powers mechanics is simply out of line with their importance to the narrative and / or their purpose from a purely gamist perspective and it's much easier to simply rely on shared understanding of what they are capable of and a hand waved resource cost based upon relative considerations. 
 
But I wouldn't be put out playing in some other GM's campaign that wanted to go the other way. YMMV, of course.
 

 

I know a lot of people hate Transform to represent a wide array of abilities, but another method would be that anything put in the Bag of Holding is transformed to the same object 1/10 the size.  The reverse Transform condition is when you pull it back out.  You wouldn't need a lot of Transform dice because most things that will fit in the Bag of Holding are going to be relatively small so they won't have lots of BODY.

This is the same thing I always think about with the various extra dimensional storage items in most Fantasy Games.
I feel like when they (rarely) show up in fiction the "cool part" about a Portable hole is how they give you access to spaces where you need them, no matter how weird.  Heroes often hide inside them.  The hero is being chased, jumps in his portable hole, the villain misses them & runs right by.
 
When they show up in the old Rodger Rabbit Movie, Portable Holes let people make a hole in a restraint, letting them escape.
 
In RPG games, people always put up shelving and use them as portable store-rooms.  Which fills a need I suppose, but I am always kinda disappointed by the lack of imagination.
 
In Hero Terms, how they are used will be the big factor in deciding how you write them up.

There's various ways, all w/ pros and cons. 
 
Most people would naturally go for an obvious and literal translation, fixating on the idea of "how do you make or interact with an extradim space in the Hero System" and thus go down the path of using EDM. This can be made to work, and I have also done it that way, but I think it is a somewhat naïve approach and focuses on using mechanics to model the SFX rather than reasoning from effects which is the more correct way to do things.
 
For me, the "bag of holding / handy haversack / portable hole / extradimensional object of holding more than you think it could" idea is mostly about carrying stuff. Bluntly, the BoH type of magic item in D&D is about allowing D&D characters to opt out of the encumbrance rules while carrying around  the ridiculous amounts of loot they have acquired. In campaigns where the GM doesn't bother to enforce encumbrance, you rarely see such items because the problem they overcome isn't affecting the players and thus they are not needed.
 
Fantasy Hero also has its version of encumbrance rules, but not all GM's enforce them at all or enforce them only partially. In a campaign w/ encumbrance being tracked, how much stuff you can carry without taking encumbrance penalties is a function of STR, and thus a bag of holding type item can be handled as nothing more than SFX for extra STR (0 END, IIF, Only to Offset Encumbrance Penalty For Things Carried Within It).
 
YMMV.
 
There are also other variant notions such as Newt Scamander's suitcase, which could be treated as a cool SFX for a Summon. Another approach for these sorts of things is as a fantasy SFX for a gadgeteer VPP (ala Batman's Utility Belt but with the justification of "magic xdim storage" instead of "Cuz I'm Batman"). And so on. At the end of the day, focus on what the desired outcome is, ask what mechanic most directly delivers that outcome, and the chrome / cosmetics is just SFX.