Cantriped

I don't believe in the "HERO system myth". As a player, I've preferred HERO system ever since I was first exposed to it. I don't see it as being all that complex; at least compared to other tabletop RPGs. I enjoy its modularity and granularity. Having run both Pathfinder and HERO as GM: I can honestly say combat takes about the same amount of time in both systems, even with a group of players who are essentially newbies to either/both systems. Barring differences in terminology the combat systems are actually fairly similar. The biggest difference being the existence of the Attacks of Opportunity mechanic. What usually slows down combat in either system is when players don't know what their Powers/Feats/Spells do, and having to look them up mid game. Of the two systems, I more frequently end up running pathfinder for one very simple reason. Preparation Time. In Pathfinder there are no less than 8 hardbound books filled with nothing but ready to run enemies, and a fairly decent list of prebuilt Traps, Diseases, Poisons, and other obstacles I can throw at my players. It has random encounter tables I can used to generate combat scenarios, and random loot generation tables which I can use to reward players for success; neither set of tables is complete, but they get the job done. With the material I have available, I literally don't have to do any preparation to run a game. Even if the players completely derail whatever adventure I had planned (which we all know happens more often than we'd like to admit), I can generate enough content during a "20-minute recess" to keep my players rolling along for the rest of the day. Lately I've been running two consecutive 8+ hour sessions once or twice a month. I just can't do that in HERO. My main complaints about Pathfinder are the Attack of Opportunity system (which I hate, but is too ingrained into the mechanics to remove), and the choice glut caused by its character generation system. The basic rules of character generation in Pathfinder are fairly "simple" (compared to HERO). The issue is the sheer number of mutually exclusive choices which have to be made to make an "effective" Pathfinder character (because nobody really wants to play a weak adventurer). Discounting fluff there are literally thousands upon thousands of pages of Races, alternate racial features, Classes, alternate class features, Feat chains, Traits, Spells, and Magical Items to wade through. Remembering what a character does or doesn't have has become impossible because unlike HERO, there is no way to swiftly audit a character sheet. Any given character might require referencing literally a dozen (or more) books to find the descriptions of all of their Game Elements. In HERO, even using CC/FHC, it takes about the same amount of time to generate a character; which for me, is anywhere between 2 hours and 2 weeks. But I feel like there is a huge advantage in that I can audit a character sheet in 5 minutes. Everything that isn't written out on their sheet can generally be found in one book.

For a Spellbook Referencing Magi you want a large-ish VPP with OAF (Personal; Spellbook; -1) Only To Change Slots on the control. You might also include Incantations (-1/4), Gestures (-1/4), and Restrainable (-1/2) on All Slots (which therefore also applies to the control). You'll want many of your "defensive" and "movement" spells to have Time Limit as an advantage, so that you can do your magic dance/finger wriggling and then fly around taking energy blasts like any other superhero. For reference the "Standard Superhero" build has at least one Movement Power (like flight or swinging), one defensive power/suite (usually Resistant Protection or various Damage Reductions/Negations), and a Multipower with 3 to 5 attack powers and maybe some utility powers you won't use while attacking (like Desolidification or Invisibility).

The original poster appears to be referencing many sources for ideas to create a "world fluff" friendly conversion of Pokémon into HERO system for a campaign. As such they aren't just referencing material from any one of the Video Games, but likely also the Card Game, and various Series/Movies.

Except that Ditto cannot choose from battle to battle to change into whichever of the 512 prebuilt pokemon character sheets that would have the greatest advantage against its opponent. It really only has access to one alternate form (at a time), which just happens to be exactly the same as whatever it is fighting.

So if I understand correctly, the Character has (and please correct me if I am wrong): 1. Rapid Attack (Use Multiple Attack as 1/2 Phase). 10 CP. 2. Rapid Autofire (Use Autofire w/ Multiple Attack). 5 CP. 3. Two Weapon Fighting (Negate -2 of Multiple Attack Penalties if Two-Weapon Fighting). 10 CP. 4. A pair of ~8d6 Armor Piercing, Autofire (3) Hand to Hand weapons (like magic boxing gloves or something?); ~65 to 105 APs (see below) (~45 to 72 CP). 5. At least 10-20 STR and 12m Running; which combined bring the attack listed above up to 10 or 11d6 depending upon the exact circumstances (see below). ~0 to 10 CP 6. Passing Strike (STR+(v/10)d6; Full Move). 5 CP. 7. OCV ~10 to 14. ~40 CP If all of the above is true, than the build is legal with the following caveats related to Autofire: 1. Are they actually wielding a pair of weapons? If not they cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting. 2. Did you waive the +1 Advantage Surcharge for an autofire attack that doesn't apply versus "normal defenses" (see CC 99)? Although Armor Piercing isn't specifically listed, halving the opponents defenses definitely qualifies as not their "normal defenses". If you didn't their STR + Velocity won't add much to damage; since they now need 12.5 APs per +1 DC. Worse however, they may not have paid the appropriate amount for their power. 3. Do their weapons Cost END? If not the value of Autofire doubles, potentially up to +2 1/2 (see above, except 18.75 APs per DC). If they do Cost END, did the player pay the 20 to 33 END which that maneuver costs (depending upon exact circumstances above)? Are you even tracking END? If you weren't before you should now, given what that player has built. Does the character even have enough END to pull that maneuver off? If so, how many times can they do it? 4. Don't forget that if he wants to attack the same foe twice in a Multiple Passing Strike he have to make a full 10m circle around them for each attack beyond the first, regardless of how he builds the attack, or what skills he bought. Having actually played a character who had an Autofire Armor Piercing Attack, I can attest that they can cause lots of problems for you as the GM. You should always be wary of builds like this. However, they aren't actually that "broken", they just require some planning for. Defenses such as Desolidification, Damage Negation, and Damage Reduction can really take the sting out of this tactic (not to mention plain old Hardened Defenses or High DCV). And they will be less effective against groups of weak spread out enemies than they are against a single powerful foe. In addition, given the OCV range you gave, he won't be getting all 6 shots off all that often, but he will be spending the END for them (if his powers cost END). Meaning its a huge risk to Nova like that in an extended battle, if it doesn't end the fight, the fight might end him.

I hold very strong opinions about game design, and I apologize if I was too forceful in my presentation of how I think you should be doing things. I always look at things from the perspective of the player who wants to optimize, because I am the kind of player who wants to optimize my characters. As such you should feel free to take my advise with an appropriately large grain of salt. It is also worth noting that I am biased against Spell-Roll based magic systems because one of my favorite Fantasy HERO characters died mid-campaign specifically because he failed a Spell-Roll at an inopportune moment (It was a Turakian Age campaign using their standard magic system). It soured me for the whole thing. I also apologize for continuing the tangent but... Mechanically I've designed magic systems that use almost every common design conceit presented in Fantasy HERO. However I've come to the conclusion that structuring an entire magic system on a few hard rules is, in itself, flavorless. Rules such as "all spells are bought seperately but divide costs by 10" or "all spells must cost END, and take Gestures, Incantations, and Concentration" limit my creativity, annoy my players, and create gaps which are hard to fill or have to be hand-waved. So the short answer is that I build any given magic user in the most efficient way possible, and give them whatever modifiers best represent the concept and flavor. Here are some examples of "magic systems" which I have built (in some cases to be played by my players, since I am the "Rules Lawyer" of my group, I built all the characters) In my last champions game, one of my players built a character who was literally summoned from the pages of a storybook by a group of evil cultists. She escaped the cultists and took with her the storybook she was summoned from. In her hands (and to her eyes) it was a Grimoire which always opened to just the spell she needed. To anyone else, it would have functioned as a method of summoning her (or any other character from it) to the storybook's holder. In terms of her magic system, the character had a VPP (60 APs Control) which required access to the Grimoire to change slots, and all slots required Gestures and Incantations. The character rarely used the grimoire though, because she wasn't actually a mage. She was more of a paladin, with magical armor that brought her defenses into mystic brick territory, and a magic sword that gave her the ability to detect the presence of "Evil". In my last Fantasy HERO campaign, I had two players playing magic users: The first player (who was the same player as the storybook paladin above) was playing a pair of young twin illusionist-gladiators. All of their spells were bought through a 45-point Multipower, All Slots required Gestures, Incantations, Concentration, and a trio of Foci (an amulet and two rings) or suffered reduced effect (-15 APs per foci). Most of the spells were illusions, so "Glamoury Fireball" for example was OMCV vs. DCV, AVAD (Mental or ED, whichever was higher), Does BODY, AoE Explosion, Obvious to Sight, Hearing & Smell, and Did Not Effect Undead Class Minds. Almost all of their defensive and utility spells were "fire-and-forget" so they used Persistent + Time-Limit to remain active even while they used their Multipower to cast other spells. The second player was playing a master smith who was a partial-incarnation of a smith god. He had density increase and could forge magical shields (and only magical shields). The Density Increase had no special spellcasting modifiers, it was simply a divine power he possessed. His ability to forge magical shields was represented as a VPP with which he bought all of the relevant game elements (a HTH Attack, bonus DCV, magical properties, etc) of any given Magical Shield he crafted. To change slots he had to make an Armorsmithing Roll, or visit one of the many "Griswolds" who worshiped him and kept shields he had crafted on display. All the slots in his VPP required modifiers such a Focus, Gestures and Extra Time to equip, Restrainable, Lockout (other shields), Unified Power (by Shield). For a Heroic Fantasy HERO project I am currently working on I wrote an 800-point master necromancer (as the main villain) who uses True Name magic (she mastered the "True Name of Bone"). Most of her spells are contained in a 90 APs Multipower with Incantations on all slots, and OMCV vs. DCV (+0) on all of her attack spells. She has a few powers that had to be purchased outside of the Multipower, such as a Mind Link with up to 1000 Animated Skeletons (which she uses to issue tasks to the Animated Skeletons she animates or ​commands​). She also has a few Wonderous Items she "made" for herself, including a Bone Scythe, Skeletal Platemail, etc. Her apprentices aren't nearly as powerful as she is, and are more or less traditional spellcasters. The master necromancer has kept the True Name to herself, but taught them similar spells. They only have a 30 point multipower; All Slots take Gestures, Incantations, and Restrainable. They have weaker versions of almost all of the same spells. Just like their master they have a Mind-Link purchased outside the multipower, except they can only link to 250 ​Animated Skeletons.​ They also have a Bone Sickle they've "made themselves" as a Wonderous Item.

Neither "Must Be Used At Full Power" or "Lockout" are appropriate or legal for multiform, nor do you really need to save points, because transforming into its enemy is usually all that Ditto can do in its natural form besides be a universal stud (in the games... which is creepy so lets not go there). Lockout especially isn't legal because the mechanics of Multiform already deny Ditto the benefits of any abilities it has in its True Form. Considering that Ditto can only transform into the exact same pokemon it is currently battling, I wouldn't bother with doubling of forms. Instead I would define the "one form" it is allowed as "an exact duplicate of its enemy" and leave it at that, if you feel like this is more advantageous than being able to pick an alternate build, I suggest making it a custom +1/4 to +1/2 advantage. I would have Ditto spend most (if not all) of its points on Multiform, allowing it to break the restriction on multiforming into forms built on greater CP than itself. Also, I would keep the build as simple as possible, leaving out the required roll, and endurance cost. However limiting the ability by Charges sounds appropo to me 4-8 charges per day is more than sufficient to make one worth capturing, and won't reduce the cost of the power too much. If Ditto has any points left over, I would beef up its PD, ED, BODY, STUN, and REC into the stratosphere in its True Form (the special effect being its amorphous form).

That episode sounds familiar, but it has literally been more than a decade since I watched the show. I mostly played the games (Up through leaf green, and then later a fair bit of PokeMMO). I would avoid having pokemon be legally edible given the nature of your campaign; it's just all kinds of macabre.

Historically speaking, the advantage to being mounted was that being up on a horse puts you outside the reach of most hand to hand attacks and short weapons (similarly mounted fighter often carried slightly longer weapons to allow them to fight foot-troops). The unequal reach rules put the on-foot fighter at a similar disadvantage as the mounted fighter, meaning it equals out in most cases. While the horse is within reach, only an idiot would attack the horse; the horse was the most valuable loot you were likely to acquire on the battlefield. The armor rarely fits, the weapons are rarely any better than your own and usually too long to easily use on foot. If you want to play up the advantage of mounted combat a little more, I vaguely recall Fantasy HERO suggesting a +1 or +2 OCV modifier for being on Higher Ground (it wasn't included in FHC so I can't be sure ATM). In most (but not all) cases a mounted fighter would gain that bonus over fighters on-foot. Meaning if they also have PSLs to counter the penalties then it is entirely advantageous to be mounted. It is also worth noting that if you are mounted you can avoid penalties for poor footing and bad terrain that fighters on foot cannot (granted the horse does suffer the penalties, but that isn't a big deal since you will be attacking far more often than your horse will). I can only cite CC/FHC in regards to RAW, since I've never actually used 6th edition (I skipped straight from playing 5th to GMing CC/FHC). In CC/FHC Mounts and Vehicles are described separately, with entirely different combat modifiers that relate to the fact that a vehicle can't control itself, while a mount can. Mounts borrow from vehicles rules regarding the fact that the rider uses the mounts movement, and has to act at the mounts DEX, but that is basically all. If both were trained, I think I would only call for a Riding check: 1. To reduce the damage from the Unhorse Maneuver (using the rules for breakfall). 2. To prevent/reduce damage when your mount was Knock Out or Slain (again, using the rules for breakfall). Otherwise as far as I can tell, the rules in FHC never require you to make a Riding check if you and your mount are trained, and I see no reason to complicate or slow down play by changing that.

The Pokemon Act: This document would probably set humanition standards for pokemon treatment. It might also stipulate legal capture conditions, and legal methods of restraint (which led to the development of standardized pokeballs). This document would likely set forth the standards of pokemon battles and dueling. Setting limits on the number of pokemon brought into a battle or even carried on your person. Certain techniques might be outlawed; those that would automatically kill pokemon, or those that cause massive collateral damage. This document would restrict how pokemon were used by industry and military organizations. For example, the use of pokemon as or by soldiers against humans or other pokemon is likely considered a war crime. It would likely be illegal (or even a war crime) to use psychic pokemon to control/influence government officials, and maybe even humans in general. So as to prevent the creation of shadow governments, or prevent the "police" from psychically torturing prisoners, or forcing them to make false confessions. Similarly, the use of pokemon in industry is likely severely limited, given their intelligence it is likely illegal to harvest plant and beast like pokemon as food products... So no Miltank Burgers with a Oddish side salad. Pikachu running in treadmills and using their powers to produce electricity for cities have to be given breaks, and fed appropriately, etc.

Given what you have already stipulated, I don't see any mechanical reason why anyone would want to play a Shaper, or why they would even still exist in your world. Shapers have to pay more for their spells then anybody else (and therefore actually have fewer spells and less flexibility than everyone else). They can't trade spells out like Wilder can, nor can they have the glut of different spells they can rely on to work without fail like an Academic can. I just don't see any advantages compared to the other two, much more efficient/versatile options. In any kind of magical war the Academics would have wiped out the shapers, leaving the Wilders only because they can come up with specifically tailored defenses that give them an edge against academics. They might exist historically, and you can enforce their continued existence by GM fiat, but I don't see any reason as a player why I would put up with being denied access to power-frameworks when there are other options available. Furthermore, your fluff for Wilders and Shapers sounds awfully similar. The only real difference I can discern is in their purchase method, which is a poor way to differentiate a magic system. The people of your world wouldn't know how many points they spent on their magic, or how they are organized on a character sheet, they will only know what can be observed about different kinds of magic users (number of spells, reliability, power, etc). Personally I suggest combining the concepts of Shapers and Wilders... Or rather, attaching all of your Shaper-themed fluff to the Wilder. The Shaper fluff screams VPP to me. However, if you absolutely have to keep the Shaper as distinct from the Wilder, they need a Cost Dividend to help them keep up with the other types of spellcasters (I suggest 1/5th cost). As it stands, an Academic doesn't just have 3-4 spells to the shapers 1, they get ~5 spells for each of the shapers first 2 spells, and ~10 spells for every additional spell the shaper has to purchase outright thereafter. That isn't even considering that Shapers also have to invest in a Skill to even use their spells. Similarly, Wilders may only have two or three spells at once, but they effectively have access to every spell, and will almost never be stuck with the "wrong spell"

FHC's mounted combat rules (FHC 157) don't seem complicated or punishing to me. They are both simpler and less punishing than the rules for Mounted Combat are in Pathfinder. I haven't had the opportunity to do so, but I would follow them by the book. Penalty Skill Levels to offset the OCV penalty for mounted combat are cheap, and a penalty to OCV while mounted is completely justified given that your movement isn't entirely under your control. There is no mention of a DCV penalty for either the rider or mount, meaning both keep their own DCV. Remember, mounts are not vehicles, the sections regarding vehicles in combat are specific to that type of equipment/game element. Riding checks are only called for if your mount isn't trained for combat (and in that case the penalties are far worse than just -2 OCV). It is also worth noting that Combat trained mounts often have Riding purchased themselves, specifically to act as a complementary roll to their rider's check. The only thing I dislike about mounted/vehicular combat is that the Speed Chart makes everything so much more complicated than it needs to be, but that is a problem with the characteristic, not with mounts/vehicles.

As someone who has spent a fair bit of the last decade working on one magic system or another for HERO, I really like the magic system you are developing. It looks interesting, sounds reasonable and feels self-consistent. My only advise for potentially improving the system you outlined would be to have Shapers use a smaller VPP (maximum of 3/4 of the APs of a Multipower taken by a character of the same point level) which requires a Magic Skill Roll and Variable Limitations (between -1/2 and -1) on all slots, in addition to requiring a lots of Extra Time separate Inventor Skill Roll (at an even higher penalty) to change slots. A looted Academic's Spellbook might give a shaper a bonus to their Inventor roll when recreating the effects of spells contained within.

In many anime that use the "magic circle" manifestation of magic, a haymaker is represented by "stacking" multiple magic circles (usually 3 to 5 instead of just 1). Ostensibly this works like stacking lenses to focus light, and requires more time and greater concentration to pull off than simply focusing your "mana" through a single "magic circle" would. The description of the Gather Power class feature of the Kineticist (Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures), feels very much like a kind of haymaker (It also screams Dragon Ball Z rip-off, but that is neither here nor there). It involves producing a large and visible elemental manifestation in a 7-8m radius around the character, and can take up to a phase and a half. In one of the Superheroic western cartoons I saw once (I forget which one now, but I think Wonder Woman was in it), a super-mystic villain performed a haymaker firebolt. Normally his firebolts were small, quickly cast one handed, and flung much like baseballs, but this one he charged for several seconds, holding the sphere of fire over his head with both hands as it grew, and I think he was incanting... but I'm not sure because he wasn't on camera for most of it (there was too much other, more interesting fighting and dialogue going on). I am inclined to say that you cannot Haymaker spells which already take Extra Time beyond Full Phase, but nothing in the FHC description of Extra Time or Haymaker actually prohibits it.

This more than a little bit of a tangent, but In my opinion the best ways to prevent a spell from feeling like a superpower is by describing it flavorfully, and by having a consistent "casting procedure" for given schools or lineages of magic... As many editions of Fantasy HERO have pointed out, calling a spell Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Dispel Magic isn't very flavorful. Meanwhile "Chandra's Explosion", "The Izzet Sky-Splitter", or "Ixidor's Denial" sound much better, and can do a lot to flesh out setting and inform the player's as to its history without you having to monologue or write long, dry descriptions half the players won't read anyway. Even if they never get to meet Chandra or Ixidor in person. The description of a spell's manifestation can also do much to create the feel of magic. For example: In many fantasy RPG settings (such as the Iron Kingdoms, and later in Golarion), and almost every fantasy anime (especially since Full-Metal Alchemist), the act spellcasting is accompanied by the manifestation of magic circles containing glyphs, runes, and incomprehensible symbols in the caster's hands, at their feet, or near the spell's target. Cinematically, the Incantations modifier does the most to make a spell feel like magic, and less like a superpower. Lots of superheroes strike poses when using their powers (because it is a comic book trope that makes them easier to redraw over and over), but very few superheroes shout gibberish at their opponents before blasting them (because word bubbles take up art-space and aren't very dynamic). As proof, almost all of the mystic superheroes use incantations (although few of them are actually required to). Although lots of anime characters (magical and otherwise) like to shout their attack names, the writers frequently use English rather than Japanese for their incantations. To an American audience this is just cliché, but to the Japanese audience it was intended for I imagine it makes those powers feel very exotic. I just wish they reversed the trend when dubbing these series (having the attack names shouted in Japanese, Spanish, French, or some other language instead of remaining in English).

Private Schools for those with Fae Blood: Avalon Academy (in England) Mrs. Titania's School for Courtly Etiquette (thought to be in Ireland, but accessible globally through fairy rings) Kobito Cram School (in Japan) Private schools for those aligned with the Unseelie: Shady Thickets Academy Mr. Bug's Reform School Public High Schools for Fae: Dullahan High New Avalon High Elementary Schools for Fae: Oberon Elementary Spritely Youth Academy

Personally, I dislike both the Beam and Spell Limitations. I don't use either of them in my own projects and campaigns. I split Beam into three modifiers: Does Not Leave Holes (-1/4) Cannot Be Reduced (-1/4) Cannot Be Spread (-1/4) Very few, if any of my power constructs actually take all three of these modifiers. The Spell limitation I do not use in any format, regardless of campaign type. According to CC/FHC spells should be taking the modifier Cannot Be Use With [specific Combat Maneuver], for each of the 11 maneuvers covered by "Spell" (Blazing Away*, Grab By, Haymaker, Hipshot, Hurry*, Move By, Move Through, Multiple Attack, Pulling A Punch, Snap Shot, and Suppression Fire). And as above should be taking Cannot Be Spread (-1/4), and Cannot Be Bounced (-1/4). *These maneuvers do no exist in CC/FHC. Admittedly, I do not think Spell should be worth -2 3/4 (the value indicated by my statement above); but neither do I think the -1/2 value given in FH pg 276 is correct either. If I had to I would split the difference at -1 or -1 1/2. The maneuvers system is one of my favorite parts about HERO compared to most of the other games I've played. It is my opinion that applying the restrictions of the Spell modifier without a modifier value is very unfair to spellcasters, and frequently inappropriate to the special effect of the spell being used. A "Burning Hands" like spell for example should certainly be able to be Spread depending upon how it is built. Likewise it is highly cinematic to Multiple Attack or Suppression Fire a "Magic Missile" style spell. In terms of "genre conventions" or "balance" the Spell modifier promotes spellcasters behaving like they do in DnD or Video Games; by forcing them to stand and cast, and preventing them from using their spells as creatively or cinematically as they otherwise could. I do not feel like it reinforces any of the genre conventions of Fantasy seen in cinema and literature, but too be fair I watch a lot of cartoons (especially anime). Spellcasters in animated fantasy stories frequently behave more like super-mystics. When they don't I feel like it is because of the Gestures, Incantations, and (most importantly) Concentration required by their particular spells, not because of a meta-mechanic of the magic system.

As a fellow user of Champions Complete/Fantasy HERO Complete: I suggest you start by acquiring Champions 6th (almost entirely for the Superhero Gallery), followed by the Expanded Superhero Gallery (available in PDF in the store). Champions 6th also contains a gallery of minions and minor enemies, and several very useful optional rules for running a superheroic campaign. Second, pick up HERO System Martial Arts. This book contains the most useful bang for your buck in my opinion of any of the 6th edition supplements. If you need more prebuilt materials, I suggest Champions Villains 1-3, HERO system Bestiary, Champions Powers and the HERO System Equipment Guide (in that order). If you need setting information, I suggest Champions Universe, and Champions Beyond. Finally, if you plan to run a Fantasy HERO game, pick up Fantasy HERO Complete, and (this will sound strange but...) Fantasy HERO 5th edition. I suggest Fantasy HERO 5th because 90% of the 6th edition version is simply cut and pasted whole cloth from the 5th edition version (I've actually gone through it page for page and checked), and lots of useful material was omitted from the 6th edition version in favor of referencing other 6th edition books (making it far less valuable as a standalone product), but did not actually change between editions. For example, the Armorsmithing chart was moved to HERO System Skills, and the Bind maneuver was moved to HERO System Martial Arts. The only thing that is actually better about the 6th edition version is the formatting; The art and examples are actually worse in my opinion. The PDF of Fantasy HERO 5th is for sale on the store for 10$

I'm not exactly a lurker but... My current Handle was the name of one of my World of Warcraft Characters, a goblin mage. Lately I use it all over the net (including on the paizo forums and Steam). A cantrip is a mischevious or playful act, or a trick; in gaming parlance a cantrip is a weak or minor spell. I misspell it's past-tense on purpose because I like the way it looks as "cantriped" better than "cantripped". The first tabletop RPG I played was a mix of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, and I was 4 years old when I rolled that character; my mother was the GM at that table. The first tabletop RPG I ran as GM was 3rd edition D&D. I am not currently playing in any games (the last game I played in was a pathfinder campaign). I am currently running a Pathfinder campaign, but I have run a few HERO campaigns as well over the years. The HERO System has been my favorite gaming system for almost a decade now. I currently use the Champions Complete/Fantasy HERO Complete rulesets (which I consider to be as distinct an edition as 5th revised was to 5th). You will most frequently see my name show up in threads regarding rules questions or character building. One of my hobbies is writing up characters and concepts from the shows I watch in HERO system.

The keys to making Adversarial GMing work are: 1. Follow the rules as exactly as possible, never fudge rolls, only house-rule when necessary. 2. Set harsher guidelines for yourself than for your players. For Example, in Pathfinder you might generally restrict yourself to encounters with equal or lower challenge ratings than the average party level. 3. Don't coddle the players during the Game, don't give them advice or information they didn't earn with a skill check unless it is obvious or common knowledge to everyone. 4. Only act like an adversarial GM during the game. Outside of game give them all of the information and advice they want and need. Be as helpful as you would be if your own child were stuck or stumped by a videogame you have already beaten. 5. Never, ever lie to your players, or give them bad advice on purpose. I can't stress this part enough. Your players should be able to trust you aren't out to get them personally. Nothing ruins that trust faster than telling a player "sure build an undead hunter, they will be fairly common in this campaign", and then purposefully not including any undead in your encounter designs, or "that OAF will hardly ever come up, it is totally worth the points!", and then giving nearly every enemy a good grab or disarm. Personally, I don't do adversarial GMing very much, but I like to pretend that I do. Like joking to the players of two dwarves the night before the game that "they better rest up, because I've got dwarves to kill in the morning." (I said this no less than eight times, and those darn dwarves never died).

I often have things tangentially related to the PCs appear on the news. For Example: "Bruce Wayne attends the Gotham Gala, but leaves early to help adopted son Dick Greyson with homework." Of I have the news recap what the PCs acomplished, and any after-affects they may not have known about. For Example: "In a record setting turn of events, the comatose Trojan Mastermind was broken out of his MCPD Cell by a mysterious supervillain minutes after being teleported there by Millennium City's least secret* Superheroin RIFT" *The player had her "secret" ID was posted on Facebook the first day of the campaign... *facepalm* (The second example is from one of my campaigns)

Everything gets more complicated (and fun) with Captain Chronos on the case!

I agree Dr. Destroyer is pretty much in the center of the Champions Universe. My favorite choice would be Captain Chronos, whether they know they are connected to him is another matter...

If you are the GM, than you did not "cheat". What you say goes. Although personally I wouldn't "roll" an attack pre-game because it's bad form. Instead I might use the standard effect rules to determine the result of such an attack, or determine its effect arbitrarily. If my story needs something to happen, I'm not about to let a die roll determine it's success or failure, it just happens. That being said, I wont do things arbitrarily that punish the players, because that wouldn't be fun, and the goal is to have fun, not kill the players. Hearing 18 dice hit the table can be a cue to players, but if you are worried about that, there are phone apps which can roll dice silently. I even found one that rolls HERO Effect rolls (it can calculate Normal Damage BODY, STUN Multiplier, and everything). However my preferred tactic is to just play with my dice occasionally, meaning that I will roll them for no reason. Sometimes I will also roll dice and then ignore the results if I feel like chance is swinging too hard in the NPCs favor.

I strongly disapprove of your magic system's use of the Variable Power Pool... The entire point of a VPP is to allow character to have a greater level of versatility than the standard array of one Attack, one Defense, and one Utility or Movement power, while limiting the number of real points and/or the theme of the abilities they have access to at once. What you are proposing limits a character's selection out the gate, forces them to pay more and get less, and also creates a huge number of balancing issues for yourself. This system won't prevent game breaking by spellcraft. Instead it will encourage them to power-game their spell selection (because it is so limited), and find every cheesy method possible to expand their spell lists. As mentioned above, if everyone builds a mage and then trades spellbooks you now have between 6 and 18 different spells right out of the gate. Even if they don't, every enemy mage is running under the same system, meaning you have to give them all the exact same spells the players use, or risk increasing the versatility of a spellcaster geometrically with each encounter against a magic user. The only way you have given yourself to limit character's tendency to collect an infinitely expanding list of more and more broken combinations is to take away their spellbooks (a task which is more easily said than accomplished). Caster's aren't just going to carry their spellbook on an easily yanked chain like the illustrations of Pathfinder characters might lead you to expect, nor will they carry it in their hands. Unless you specially arrange it (which will take more effect than just killing the mage), it will be almost impossible to deprive a caster of their spells once they have them. Moreover taking the spellbook won't prevent them from casting a spell they've already managed to get into their VPP (instead it prevents them from removing it). Moreover, taking away a character's equipment is frustrating for the player (who may legitimately feel cheated of the many points they spent), and if you do it frequently you will quickly lose your player's interest in the campaign. In addition, making power creation limited to caster's makes your warriors even less relevant. Because they can't gain access to modifiers like Armor Piercing or Area of Effect without becoming spellcasters; meanwhile nothing prevents a spellcaster from buying a greatsword, some Martial Arts with it, and then arranging their spells to cover their weaknesses or improve their weapons beyond what a martial character can accomplish. Were I making a standard "Glass Cannon" mage for your campaign I would build the following spells: Force Bomb: 2d6-1 RKA vs. PD, Armor Piercing (+1/4), Area of Effect (2" Radius; +1/4?) (37 APs) ​Force Chains: 2d6, 3 Def Entangle, Area of Effect (2" Radius; +1/4?), Takes No Damage From Force Attacks (+1/4) (37 APs) Force Disk: Flight, Half END (+1/4) (I am assuming Zero END isn't allowed, otherwise I'd go with that.) With this list my tactic would be to fly out of the range I can be easily hit, then chain and bomb my enemies into submission from a safe distance. Only dedicated archers will be able to attack me at all, and only dedicated melee fighters are likely to have the STR to break my entangle so they can (in theory) actually attack me. At the starting point level nobody can afford to be good at both, meaning every enemy on the field is likely to be locked up unless they can teleport or have an extreme level of strength. Because all my attacks are AoE, the DCV of my enemies is irrelevant (so the fact that mine probably sucks doesn't matter). Nevermind that flight lets me overcome almost every terrain based obstacle used in medieval warfare. Edited to sound a little less mean-spirited.