Grailknight

Defender was even worse than that. He took NCM and Steve Long came up with the "Defender exploit" so that Characteristics bought in Frameworks weren't subject to NCM doubling.

Number 2 and number 5 are the most common IME with number 2 ahead by a large margin.

Approximately 20 years give or take a few months, it's building to its conclusion.

Possibly. I have a serious lack of players currently, but it may just become that nagging thought that I can't put down.

I wouldn't charge any extra then. This is simply a question of if you'll allow the Multiform in question. If he doesn't get the vehicle discount just rule on whether he can or can't be an Automaton in the alternate form.

What value would you place on this if a player asked for it. Nesting a 5 point per 1 point Vehicle inside a 5 point per 1 point Multiform will allow some extremely powerful builds.

I have much less issue with worlds where the hate is against all Supers no matter their power source. But I do feel that the inventor/gadgeteer types would be stuck in the middle. If they join the anti-super movement (because it's probably going to take more than conventional weapons to keep supers down), then they'll be accepted and probably placed in leadership or privileged and protected positions. If they don't, they'll be part of the problem and decried as traitors to humanity. My last project for HERO was going to be a campaign set in the aftermath of a worldwide anti-supers war. Maybe I'll look for my notes and work on it again.

Two options: Number one, make your car form without using the vehicle or automaton rules. Then it's just a regular Multiform. Option two, get with your GM and see what's allowed after you explain your concept. GM permission trumps RAW but be very clear and concise with your abilities and don't make any changes without approval.

Wow, it sucks to be Washington State and Oregon State right now. I only see two options for them. Number one is just to join the MWC and accept that they're no longer Power 5 schools. Secondly, they could swallow their pride and grovel to the Big 12 for entry on terms similar to but not quite as bad as SMU got from the ACC for reduced revenue shares for a time. I don't think either could make it as Independents.

Why make a new Limitation when Concentrate at this level does exactly what you want? The costing seems to be appropriate so just use it and move on. Life Support (Longevity: Immortal; Self-Contained Breathing), Usable Nearby (+1/2), Grantor can take back power at any time, Grantor pays the END whenever the power is used, Grantor can only grant the power to others (22 Active Points); Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (0 DCV; Character is totally unaware of nearby events; -1 1/2), OAF (-1) Cost: 6 Real Points

Verstappen didn't rise up to challenge Hamilton. Red Bull rose up to challenge and surpass Mercedes. As structured, F1 racing is prone to these streaks of dominance. While the drivers are the public face of the sport, the constructors and their engineering teams are its true stars. It's 90% the cars provided and 10% on the drivers and race day crew. Red Bull currently has the best car and the only ones in shouting distance of them are Ferrari, McLaren and Merecedes. The situation is volatile because the construction regulations and parameters in F1 are much looser than NASCAR or Indy car racing so their cars have greater variation from the norm. But they place strict limits on how much money can be spent within any given racing season. If one team makes a better adjustment to the offseason changes, they can count on being at the top for that year unless their advantage is very slim. I'd love to see the F1 drivers do something like the old International Race of Champions series. The top 8-12 drivers and their crews would compete in a series of races with identical cars from one manufacturer and would have to rotate cars and crews from race to race so they never drove the same one twice. That way we could have a points system for both drivers and crews and a fairer gague of each's skills.

Isn't this a game where we're playing as Batman or Hank Pym or Tony Stark or John Henry Irons? We play the real world 1% exceptions not the 99% rule. And in the real world there are athletes who are Rhodes scholars. Granted they're not as common as in genre, but they do exist.

That's probably even closer.

Well, more like variations of Iron Man.

Yes, he does and he's just as broken. It's just harder to see until you add in all the Weapon Master.

I'll sum up my feelings and bow out also. There is merit in Doc and Hugh's ideas. More system balance is a good thing. But I feel they are diving too deep into the mechanics and losing the passion. They're writing for The Advanced GM Guide while I'm working on the Player Handbook.

This isn't about gameplay so much as it is about marketing. HERO is a Supers game at heart and has always been linked most strongly to Champions in the gaming world. So, when we look at first impressions, newbies will want their PC to "Be as strong as the Hulk", or "As nimble as Spider-Man", or "An engineer as good as Tony Stark". And what will your system show them? Not a tangible value but a bonus to a roll. It takes 6th edition and makes it dryer and wordier and you'll still have to use Characteristics to describe the roll type. All you're really doing is eliminating high base skills because you'll have to buy the bonuses for each or at a higher rate for a group so no Figured Skills. Your system does make system costs more balanced, but it lacks emotion in character creation. The RPG industry has been going for 40+ years and I've never seen a product with no Characteristics. And all of those games use those Characteristics to (Wait for it...) give modifiers to rolls. They just make it easier to visualize a character concept and certainly to individualize one. HERO's problem isn't in how fun the gameplay is, it's how complicated character creation is perceived to be. As a halfway measure you could just change the costs of Skills. Make them cost 2 points for a base 11 or less and 4 points for a base of 9+Char/5. You can only add All Combat/Noncombat and Overall levels to the 2 point Skills but can buy up the 4 point Skills at +1 per 2 points.

They should just accept it, and merge with the MWC. They may not get Power 5 deal, but they should be able to get 10-15 million/school because of the loss of other West coast games. But the longer they put it off, the harder it'll be to act in unison.

How are Grabs handled in this system? Describe it to me. The abstraction is workable for those familiar with the system but would be terrible for newbies. Characteristics, even with their pricing issues, give some basis for understanding an ability with just one word. Without them you'll have a wordier and harder read than 5th-6th and that won't fly for attracting new players.

That's not removing STR, it's just renaming it and repricing its components. That's not remotely worth the disconnect of having the other Characteristics representing physical abilities but the not the one most commonly used across all RPGs. You even used the word strength in your list of things provided. You might as well keep the name.

The two campaigns that I allowed NCM as a Disadvantage had house rules that made it a true liability even if you stayed within the Characteristics. They were low level Supers campaigns which featured some distrust of Vigilantes, mild Anti-Super Prejudice and shadowy government organizations of which some but not all were corrupt. 1- Characteristics as Powers were not allowed as exceptions. You could be stronger than 20 STR with Density Increase or Growth but any other method paid double. 2- Taking full NCM stopped you from buying Martial Arts DC's. It gave those without NCM, an effective level of Damage Negation (This was pre-6th so we gave +4 DEF.) against you and you did normal damage to objects designated as real world. Not taking NCM had a 10 point "Detects as a Super" distinctive feature built in to balance the negation which didn't count towards your total and couldn't be bought off normally. Lacking NCM also gave 1.5x damage vs real world objects which was the root of the prejudice problem. So, it depends on the campaign assumptions, I kept some of these principals even after 6th came about. They help Supers be superior to Normals without going too far beyond 12 DC as base. YMMV.

Normal Characteristic Maxima works fine for those 7-10 DC street level games. The fast 5 SPD people don't take it but was pretty common on the 4 SPD characters. That said, I found it more useful as a delineator for several house rules around the interaction between supers and NPC's.

Will this be for personal items only or any item you come across? What are the largest and smallest items you can change? Can you lengthen one wall of a building to block off pursuit down an alley or shorten a bridge and cause a collapse?

Simpler explanation is good option, boring story.

Having the giant eagles fly them to Mount Doom was always my favorite.