Cantriped

As a GM, you can use Psychological Limitations to "defend" against 0 EGO commands. First the victim makes an EGO roll against the command, followed by another EGO roll (which they are very likely to fail) to overcome their Psych Lim and actually perform the command. If they fail both rolls they just stand there conflicted. If they fail the first, but make the second they follow the command. If they make the first they flip their commander the bird and do what they want.

Another cheesy move which I encountered as a GM was Drain EGO. Being at 0 EGO is as bad or worse than being mind-controlled. I didn't have to prohibit it, the player who used it decided it was so cheesy that they didn't play that character anymore.

Just a short one while I have bandwidth on the road. You don't need increased maximum weight at all. When you are teleporting or using EDM "your" weight is irrelevant. Additional Mass allows a teleporter to carry boulders or willing allies with them when they teleport/EDM. UAA makes "you" the target being attacked, meaning UAA Teleport/EDM can affect targets of any mass without paying modifiers to do so. The EDM section shouldn't have Constant or Persistant... these modifiiers are only needed when trying to create a semipermenant Gate to another dimension, which is not how pokeballs work. They are definately Instant, and should remain so. EDM doesn't reverse if you fall asleep in the same way you don't walk backwards in your sleep, or unteleport, the effects of movement powers linger like Damage (even if they are used as Attacks). The target stays where you put them unless they use movement powers of their own. Also, Always On cannot be taken by standard EDM or Entangle because they are instant powers with lingering effects. Unless the creature also has EDM of their own, they can't normally come back from where you sent them. Entangle has escape mechanics of its own, and unless you pay for it to be Dismissable; you can't remove it except by those means either.

Looks like I have time for one more post on my way out the door. 1) Both Vulnerabilities and Damage Reductions can be tied to a Special Effect (such as "Ice-Type Attacks" or "Dark-Type Attacks") In which case they apply to all attacks of that type, regardless of their normal defenses (PD, ED, Flash, Power, Mental, etc). 2) There was a value listed for 100% Resistant Damage Reduction in Fantasy HERO 5th (it might be in other sources, but I can't be sure...) of 120 APs (and 60 APs for 100% nonresistant Damage Reduction). For a campaign setting like this, I think its use is appropriate because pokemon tend to have lots of different types of attacks, so immunity to one type of damage isn't going to break the balance of the game. 3) Personally, I don't think you should treat the Pokémon Types as a sacred cow unless you have a very, very good reason to do so. I suggest making your own Type Chart, with a reasonably balanced list of vulnerabilities and resistances. Then only make pokemon pay points for combinations of types that give them an unusual advantage in terms of resistances vs. vulnerabilities. I would suggest keeping the truly iconic types (Fire-Type, Water-Type, Electric-Type, etc), and merging types that are difficult to visually distinguish... Water&Ice, Ground&Rock&Steel, Normal&Flying, Ghost&Psychic, etc. In the rare cases where you want a pokemon resistant or vulnerable to an unusual type, just make them be resistant or vulnerable to it and note that fact as an unusual quality in their pokedex entry... you don't have to do pokemon type juggling to manipulate resistances and vulnerabilities like the games did because this is HERO system, and not a programmed video game where unique conditional weaknesses and strengths are more difficult to write in than new pokemon types. 4) As far as commonality of types goes, "Normal" type moves are Common or Very Common, because almost every pokemon has (or has access to) several Normal-type moves over it's progression, nevermind that most of them would just be special effects for standard STR-based strikes in HERO (which really almost every creature has). Almost every other type is either Uncommon, or has a commonality that varies with generation. For example, Ghost type moves were rare in 1st Gen, and there were almost no purely Ghost Type pokemon. Dark-type and Steel-type moves were fairly rare when the types were first released, but became more common as generations progressed and new moves were invented and old moves changed type (Bite becoming a fairly common Dark-type move for example). Even in later generations Dragon type moves remain Uncommon, even amongst Dragon-type pokemon.

The other thread I was refering to was the one you started in "Other Genres" asking about what genre Pokemon falls into. Isofar as tasks are concerned, I hadn't given them too much thought when I wrote the previous post. I expect each command counts as one task, making tasks functionally similar to PP in the games. However since you get an EGO roll to acquire more tasks every time they run out (at increasingly less likely rolls), it is actually much more like how Charizard never did what Ash told it too and loafed around. The end result of this mechanic in HERO is that pokemon become less and less willing to fight the longer a battle drags on, with the pokemon eventually having to be returned (Dismissed) in favor of another. Technically a Summoner can just "repop" a friendly pokemon to get a new set of free tasks, but since that is contrary to the etiquette of trainer battles, I might hand wave that doing so requires the same EGO roll as getting new tasks, even though the mechanics say otherwise. Isofar as Specific Being goes, I think you are confusing it's mechanics with those of other related modifiers: 1) Specific Being doesn't force or represent any kind of bond with the Summoner mechanically, that is what the Amicable and Annoyed modifiers do. Nor is Specific Being required to have a "unique" pokemon from others of its species... Unless you have purchased the Expanded Effect modifier, the default mechanics of Summon are that you define a "single type of creature" when you create the power, which is represented by having a unique character sheet. It doesn't actually matter if the "single type of creature" that you call a Bulbasaur is the same as the Bulbasaur someone else Summons, what matters is that you can't use the same power to summon any one of three different Bulbasaurs, each with different character sheets (IE one has Vine Whip and a Stretching movement power, and another that has poison powder and sleep powder, or a third that has Absorb and Leech Seed). 2) Specific Being doesn't allow the summon to gain experience like a Follower does... in fact if the Specific Being you defined is a player character or follower, when they gain experience you have to funnel more points into the summon or you cannot use the power to Summon them anymore, because Summon is defined as the ability to summon a [Fill in the Blank] Built on up to [X] Number of Points. 3) Losing the points associated with a power under certain circumstances is a limitation, not an advantage. One of the best reasons to buy Summon from a power-gaming perspective is that when they take BODY or Die, you haven't lost anything other than the END or Charges used to summon them, and can simply re-summon them. This modifier takes this benefit away, and charges the player literally twice as many points for the privilege of being able to lose them. In previous editions there was a modifier called Independent for things like magic items and such that represented that if you lost the item you also lost the points associated with it, and it was a -2 limitation. In 6th and CC/FHC you still have Charges Which Do Not Recover as an additional -2 modifier for Charges. I've never understood the value of Specific Being because it should be granting at least a +3 advantage worth of benefits in order to be a +1 advantages after you consider that it also suffers from the equivalent of a -2 limitation. *Summons also multiply your economy of action by having their own Speed score and resources they can use to fight on your behalf, but that is irrelevant to this discussion because Trainer Etiquette will generally prevent the trainer from participating in battle themselves. 4) The only actual advantage of Specific Being is that if you define your Specific Being as someone important to you in the campaign (like Giovanni, or a fellow party member) you can bring them to your location, and force them to do you bidding with an EGO roll, in addition, if you sent Giovanni to scout the end of a dangerous tunnel for you, you can use this power to summon them back to you, and they will remember what they saw and be able to recount it to you. Obviously you can't do this to a pokemon because of the mechanics of having to return to and be summoned from a pokeball. All of this being said, the reasons above were why I said Specific Being shouldn't be worth +1 and instead should be a hefty limitation... because the design of a pokemon campaign eliminates any possible advantage I can conceive of gaining from Specific Being, but still retains the -2 worth of limitation attached to it. Regardless, I can certainly see good reasons for building pokemon as followers instead of using Summon (gaining XP for example). I also understand why you would prefer your entangle mechanic for capture (it is simpler for defend against and more accurately represents the flavor of escaping a pokeball), but I do have some counter points in regard to that. 1) Followers are assumed to be around all the time, which for Ash's Pikachu is true since it never stays in its pokeball anyway. But for most pokemon that is wildly inaccurate. Follower has no inherent mechanic for "returning" a pokemon. To return and release pokemon followers from a pokeball in a mechanically accurate way, you would still need a combination of EDM, UAA, OAF, Gestures (to return pokemon) and Summon (X-Point Pokémon)*, Dismissable, Expanded Effect, Specific Being, OAF (to release a pokemon), Gestures. *This version of the Summon have to be bought up to the highest point Pokémon you've trained, and must be updated whenever you most powerful pokemon gains Experience, Expanded Effect is used to allow you to summon "any pokemon you have captured and are carrying the appropriate pokeball containing". This combination of powers lets you return and release pokemon in a manner mechanically appropriate to the show... however it means you are paying for a Summon and EDM power in addition to paying for every pokemon you capture as a Follower, and whatever mechanic you use to capture them. I didn't do this in my previous example because I am a power-gamer and it was a waste of points. 2) Entangle doesn't remove the entangled creature from this dimension like a pokeball does, or change their effective size. Once inside the pokeball, you can't tell what is inside unless you already know (see all of the episodes were somebody pulls out the wrong pokemon). Nor can you affect them in any way. For example: If you crush a pokeball with a rock, the pokemon emerges unharmed in the nearest unoccupied space. If you throw a pokeball in the river, the pokemon doesn't drown (as far as we know). If you leave the pokeball in a freezer the pokemon inside doesn't freeze to death. As far as we know Psychic pokemon cannot affect pokemon inside their pokeballs with mental powers. None of these facts are necessarily true of a pokemon trapped in an entangle. As a compromise, I would suggest still using EDM as the base "capture mechanic" but making the "defense" against the EDM's UAA element based upon the mechanics of an Entangle instead of an EGO roll or Activation Roll (which I'm not sure if you noticed in my previous example I had both, so not only did the activation roll have to succeed, but the pokemon also had to fail an EGO roll to be captured)... Basically treat the pokemon as entangled (building the entangle either as a separate compound power, or using the APs of the EDM to determine it's effects), if they can break free, the EDM power fails and they return to this dimension, and if they cannot break free, the EDM power succeeds and they are placed in the "digital dimension", where pokemon can be transferred via Computer, or released/returned to for pokemon battles. That is all I have for now, and I had to write it in a rush so there might be some errors I can't take time to correct. I am vastly enjoying this topic, but I'll be out of town for the next week or so. I will reply again if I have the time and internet access, but I am just let you know in advance so you don't think you are being ignored.

This looks about right, as far as the proposed toolkitting goes. It will have the side effect of making everyman skills less reliable. I'd still suggest making familiarities and proficiencies characteristic-based (but I have to admit it's partially because I like that optional rule so much), but have them be (4+(CHAR/4)) or less for Familiarities, and (6+(CHAR/4)) for Proficiencies. This gives your baseline character the same chances of success with their everyman skills, but slightly rewards players who invest in a characteristic, and encourages them to build their skills up from familiarity to standard over time instead of waiting until they can afford a standard skill to buy it. The next section to bang out the costs on, and one that is going to be much more important to your players is the costs of Skill Levels. In an ideal ruleset their cost needs to drop by 20% to remain even with the base ruleset... However we run into the issue that some types of skill levels have no room to drop (SLs for Science and Knowledge for example), and others might become overly efficient if you drop them even by 1 CP. I'm really not sure what to propose as a solution... If you leave the costs of SLs the same, it becomes more expensive to counter the penalties associated with Requires a Skill Roll. If you also raise standard skill roll penalties from the book by 25% you are effectively nerfing everyone's aggregate chance of success by about ~15% (this value is based on my gut, I don't have the math skills to actually calculate the actual probabilities). If you don't change the penalties you are instead increasing the chances of success for true superhumans slightly across by board, while slightly nerfing the everyman. Which might be okay, you just have to go into the campaign knowing when to expect so that you can plan your encounters and environment accordingly. In either case I expect that you are going to see more players invest in standard skills over familiarities and proficiencies (unless they are characteristic based as mentioned above), having higher base characteristics where possible (because it is "cheaper" than SLs effecting all the skills associated with the characteristic), and using broader skill level groups over narrower ones (I don't remember the specific SL costs in 5th anymore, so I can't predict exactly which SL groups will be preferred, but Overall levels look pretty tempting in this system and if I recall they are cheaper than in CC/FHC).

The RAW for CC/FHC are that you recover your REC in LTE per Day or per "Five Full Hours Of Rest"... But really I doubt anybody can actually rest for 15 or 20 hours straight, so REC per Day or RECx2 per Day sounds reasonable to me. I think everyone can agree that the LTE rules are generally too much book keeping as written. I haven't actually used the LTE rules in a campaign, but were I to do so I would generally ignore the first three levels on the chart (Less than 1/2 REC, 1/2 REC and REC per turn) unless there was encumbrance or overland travel at speed (or both) involved. If you used twice your REC (or more) in END during a Turn, I would have you accrue LTE at the rate given on the table. In addition I would limit LTE Recovery to REC x2 per Day if you slept normally, REC per Day if you didn't... and I suppose if you were in a coma I might give you the full REC per 5 Hours... but at that point you might have bigger problems than your LTE.

Then I'm afraid you are better equipped to toolkit this than I am. All I can quote is the Success Roll Odds table from the back of CC/FHC and give my opinions based upon that and my memory of the costs of things back in 5th. Which as I said isn't very good since I exclusively use CC/FHC now, I sold almost all of my 5th edition books years ago. I hope I've been helpful though, and other HEROphiles might have experience with the kind of toolkitting you're currently working on, so hang in there. Best of luck!

-1/2 looks about right, maybe even -3/4. There isn't a published value for this limitation that I can recall, even in 6th or CC/FHC.

Plus if you read his mind, you still have to take the time to explain it to others yourself. Although speaking may be a "zero-phase" action, it still takes time to do. In my campaigns I pull out a stop watch when people want to say something in combat, if it takes longer than their phase say it, they have to either hold their action while they are speaking, or interrupt themselves to act. The same is true of my villains, if they are busy monologueing, they generally aren't blasting you into a super-smear. Its also important to note that most people have a tendency to stop what they are doing to listen to other people talk, even though it's rarely the most cost-effective use of their economy of actions. So I rarely have my minions or villains interrupt a speaking hero with their blasters. Even though it would be the prudent thing to do, it wouldn't be nearly as cinematic or as much fun.

Well... using CHA/4 instead of CHA/3: A ) Roll penalties need to increase by 20% to 25% to remain "even". Your Average Person would have a 62% chance of success instead of 50% (as 8s would result in 11- rolls instead of 10- rolls). A character with 20 CHA would have a 90% chance of success vs. 83% (and in the previous post it was supposed to be 98% vs. 83%, I miscalculated). B ) Familiarities and proficiencies would still lag, but obviously not as far. In my opinion though still far enough to make the extra cost more than worth just investing in the full skill if they aren't characteristic based. If they are characteristic based however 5+CHA/4 = 7- (16%) and 7+CHA/4 = 9- (37%) for an Average Person, which is essentially the same as it would be if you used characteristic based rolls for familiarities and proficiencies in the standard rules. If you make Familiarities and Proficiencies characteristic based and also change the dividend to CHA/4, the rolls for 10 CHA (the baseline) become 8- (25%), 10- (50%), and 12- (74%) for standard skills and characteristic rolls. C ) Skill level values also still lag, but obviously not as far as with CHA/3, Reducing their costs by 20% would cover it. But again, some types of level just can't drop at all and those will be the ones to suffer most under either toolkitting.

I'm of two minds regarding this idea. On the one hand I do like the granularity of skill rolls it will produce. Having originally come from d20 that was the hardest thing for me to get used to about HERO. On the other hand I see a few issues with, and lots of extra work created by, changing the dividend for characteristic based bonuses considering that Success Rolls are on a bell curve: A ) All of a character's rolls become easier to make unless you also increase penalties by between 40% and 66%; especially powers with Required Skill Rolls based upon APs. For Example: Your Average Person would now have a 74% chance of success instead of a 50% (8 is the break-point in terms of rounding and would actually result in 12- rolls, not 11-). A Character with a 20 INT would have a 98% of succeeding Knowledge rolls instead of 90%. B ) Unless you also make Familiarities (8- skills) and Proficiencies (10- skills) characteristic based (changing them to 5+CHA/3, and 7+CHA/3 respectively) then they become much less valuable if literally anyone can achieve a better roll by spending 1 or 2 more CPs. C ) Skill Levels become next to worthless, unless for some reason you've already hit the maximum (or maxima) you can raise the stat. So the cost of skill levels would have to drop at least 40%, and in some cases they simply can't as they already only cost 1 CP. Personally I don't recommend this change, its lots of extra work for every little benefit.

The reasons I dislike Characteristic Maxima include: A ) Its purpose is to encourage players to build characters with stats that fall within "reasonable" or "realistic" ranges, but I feel like the actual result is that it only complicates the math in an already complicated, math-heavy part of character generation; especially in 5th edition and earlier where some characteristics are figured from other characteristics. B ) It only punishes players who deviate from its range, without any commiserate reward for following its guidelines. Characteristic Maxima as a disadvantages doesn't actually give you points, it just prevents you from having to take another disadvantage, and in heroic campaigns Characteristic Maxima doesn't even do that. C ) It cannot or should not be applied holistically. If you do, adjustment powers basically become half as effective, as do magical items, powered armor suits, or any other power that raises characteristics... and none of these powers receive the appropriate limitation value for the penalty they suffer. But if you don't, then you are actually just encouraging characters to have more complicated builds where some of their characteristics have to come from unusual sources to avoid being penalized by the Characteristic Maxima you forced on them. For example: Characteristic Maxima doesn't combine well with mass, size, or racial templates. If you don't house rule exceptions for elves to have a higher DEX Maxima than humans, then it doesn't matter whether the archer is human or elven, their DEX is still going to be 18. But if you do house rule that templates aren't affected by Characteristic Maxima, than you end up with every archer being an elf, and every warrior being an orc (or half giant), etc just to get around the characteristic maxima. Options: I actually like the fact that there is a table listing ranges of characteristics that the game considers "realistic" or "reasonable" for normal humans. But instead of using all of the other complicated rules associated with Characteristic Maxima, and coming up with house rules for when it does or doesn't apply, I simply tell my players that unless their character has a "reasonable excuse" to, those values are the maximum values I want to see them purchase at character creation. "Reasonable Excuse" is a pretty broad category in my mind. For example I don't mind if your Wood Elf Archer has a 30 Dex and 12m of leaping, that your Human Warrior has the blood of an angel or demon to explain her 30 STR and CON, or that your Dwarven Occultist sold his soul to devils to explain his 30 PRE and 30 COM (or striking appearance depending on edition). What matters is that you have a reason, which means you are thinking about your character instead of just your character's build. A character you have thought about is more fun to play than a build you've worked on, and my objective is for everyone to have fun.

90 APs isn't really that limited... Given 90 APs to spend however I want, I could kill everyone in Los Angeles or New York in a few hours using change environment, then summon a small army of zombies from their frozen, lifeless corpses. Most modern military weapons can be built on 60 APs or less, and most earlier weapons fall between 30 and 45 APs. 90 APs will net you attacks that can kill most normal people instantly, or cause wide spread destruction. 120 APs (or more) can build doomsday devices and weapons of mass destruction, or do things like blanket cities in persisting (if not eternal) darkness. 180 APs results in destruction equivalent to one of One-Punch Man's normal punches (which destroy entire mountain ranges, vaporize asteroids, or split the atmosphere). It is worth noting a +5 APs represents a doubling of raw "force" or "power" in the real world (regardless of whether you are adding those +5 APs to 10 STR or 90 STR).

I must admit I'm not really that familiar with 5th anymore (I spent a long time wiping it from my mind to make room for CC/FHC), but "Average Person" seemed more appropo than "Small Child". Honestly, I've never been a fan of Characteristic Maxima (for many reasons). I don't use it in my campaigns, instead I just discourage players from buying up their stats beyond the Characteristic Maxima without a reasonable special effect for why that stat is so high.

I like this topic, but thus far it seems like you are only considering this campaign from the perspective of the pokemon, and more specifically, from the perspective of converting the video game "Pokémon Red/Blue" to the HERO System. I would like to take a moment and look at this from another perspective. In the games, pokemon are never seriously injured because pokemon weren't intended to be consumable resources. Having to replace a pokemon after spending time training it wouldn't be fun for the player (or even possible in some cases). However in the television shows and general lore, they certainly could die in battle against each other, to the environment, or in battles against humans. This might sound more than a little dark, but you also have to consider that things are going to happen in a table top game that game designers in a video game can prevent by programming, and writers can prevent by the power of plot. For example, what happens when a pokemon falls great distances, either because of knockback sending them off of a platform, or because team rocket dropped your stolen pokemon off of a cliff out of spite? What happens when a pokemon comes into contact with deadly hazards; such a pit of lava or vat of acid (team rocket would totally have vats of acid... just sayin)? In the lore (and I mentioned this in the other thread), it can be inferred that during wartime pokemon are used by soldiers against both humans and each other? Team Rocket still does so on any number of occasions, and Ash uses his Pikachu against members of team rocket on any number of occasions (that no one dies in these battles is mostly due to the target audience of these shows). What happens when a pokemon trainer gets gored by a Tauros or Nidoran in the safari zone because he was throwing rocks at it? What happens if Team Rocket drops a boulder on an eggsecute (just to see what happens)? Were I a player building a pokemon trainer for a campaign (such as Teen Champions) where not all of the characters are assumed to be pokemon trainers (or they aren't all assumed to be following pokemon trainer etiquette): A ) I would have a Pokebelt (my roster of available pokemon): In a campaign where I can expect to encounter wild pokemon; a pokebelt would be a Variable Power Pool representing the pokemon I can currently use in battle. The VPP would be limited to Summon powers only, all of which would be Specific Beings (+1?)* with some level of Amicable (unless I was building a member of team rocket), Gestures (-1/4), and OAF (-1). I would put Dismissible (+5 CP) on the Summon so that I could return the pokemon to its pokeball without Dispel. The VPP would be limited such that It required I either have access to my personal computer back at my home/secret base to change powers, or that I "catch" a pokemon and have space in my VPP to "buy" it on the spot (otherwise it transfers automatically to my personal computer). The VPP would have the additional limitation on changing it that I have to have actually caught the pokemon I want to "buy" the ability to summon (see below). As a player I would arrange it so that my Control was large enough to summon anything within the limits of the campaign, and that my Pool was only large enough to hold six of my best Summons at a time; since they have OAF they would be actual pokeballs I which I carry on a belt (or in a bag) that others could attempt to steal from me. *I've never understood why this modifier was an advantage... and under these circumstances I would instead treat it as a -1 limitation representing that the condition of my pokemon remains unchanged from the last time it was summoned, and that if my pokemon dies before being returned to its pokeball I lose that pokemon forever... thankfully this is a power bought in a VPP so I don't actually lose character points forever, which would be unfair and inappropriate to the concept. In a campaign where I don't expect to encounter wild pokemon; replace this VPP with a multipower of up to six different summons representing pokemon I "caught" before the beginning of the campaign. The powers drop the "Specific Beings" element, and replace it with a limitation that prevents me from summoning a defeated pokemon until I have visited my personal computer to heal them (my PC acts as a pokecenter... much like in the games). B ) I would have a Personal Computer (which acts as my bank of unavailable items and pokemon): The personal computer likely doesn't have a mechanical construct per say. Its existence is mostly just a special effect of my power framework's limitations. It either "holds" all of the pokemon I've captured, but aren't currently paying points out of my VPP to carry or provides an equivalent to a pokecenter (depending upon the details of the campaign, see above). If it can hold items as well as pokemon, it might also act as my Armory for a resource point pool, or even as separate VPP of gadgets I can produce. It might have powers which are tangential to its purpose as a pokebank/pokecenter; such as bonuses to various skills representing access to the internet or applications I've installed on it. C ) I would have a Pokedex (my pokemon encyclopedia): This might be represented as the Analyze (pokemon) +6 plus Knowledge (pokemon) +6, OAF (-1). D ) I would have empty pokeballs (a mechanic for capturing new pokemon): If I am building the character for a campaign where I expect the encounter and capture wild pokemon, the mechanic used for pokeballs is the trickiest part of building a pokemon trainer. If I don't except to encounter wild pokemon, than I don't carry empty pokeballs, and the remainder of this section is irrelevant. Given the material presented above I would represent standard pokeballs as Extra-Dimensional Movement (to the Personal Computer), Usable As Attack (Defense is a Successful EGO Roll, Being Conscious, or Not Being a Pokemon)*, Range Based on Strength, Gestures, OAF Expendable*, Activation Roll (11-)*. *The defenses likely aren't common enough for a standard champions games, but for a pokemon style game this can be hand-waved as acceptable based upon the theme of the setting. If you need a logical reason why it only works on Pokémon and not humans, call it a genetic lock keyed to prevent humans from enslaving each other (In the movie Mew-Two custom made specific pokeballs without this genetic key) *If the capture succeeds, that pokeball is now filled with that pokemon forever more, and if the capture fails, they break the pokeball, either way I can't reuse it. *Better than normal pokeballs have better activation rolls, and might also be compound powers which include a Change Environment to reduce the pokemon's EGO roll against capture. Alternatively as GM, you could replace this modifier, and the EGO roll element of the power's defenses, with a Power Skill roll (called Pokémon Training) opposed by the pokemon's EGO roll. In that system better pokeballs grant bonuses to the Power skill roll, and harder to capture pokemon have higher EGOs (or bonuses to EGO rolls against capture.

Off the top of my head, an apprentice is an "Average Person" with the small template, who has Age (10-), social limitation (subject to orders), and social limitation (youth). They will have proficiencies in whatever skills their master is teaching them.

Personally, I would treat "Provoke Monologue" as a Conversation roll, or maybe a Presence Attack (also known as poor man's mind control). In terms of effect, a successful conversation roll does exactly what the original poster is asking for. I would have Spiderman buy Conversation +6 (or more), then having him take the -3 penalty for rushing to reduce the action time down to 1 Turn, or -6 for 1 Phase. Since this is spiderman, he might have bought penalty skill levels against rushing interaction and intellect based rolls (considering how often he successfully makes rushed conversation, persuasion, and science skill rolls).

I think you could call Pokémon a member of either or both the "Tournament" or "Adventure" genres. As a cartoon it also has some elements of the "Slice-of-Life" genre. As a video game series it falls squarely into "JRPG" style of games, which are characterized by having multiple, variable party members, random encounters, leveling progressions, and turn-based combat systems (it is unusual in that generally only one party member fights at a time). As a HERO system game, a pokemon campaign would most likely fall into Teen Champions, Urban Fantasy, or Monster Hunter International (though I know very little about MHI, so I can't be sure about the latter). In HERO system, most pokemon trainers would function as a kind of technology-based summoner; with a stable of friendly (or even slavishly devoted) specific summons. Limits on how many pokemon they carry into battle, and the fact that trainers rarely (if ever) participate in battle themselves are entirely arbitrary, and matters of the educate of the setting. Moreover the world's lore provides examples of human martial artists sparing with their pokemon, and infer that during wartime human soldiers fought alongside their pokemon, or used pokemon as living weapons against other humans.

Not at all, and I'm sorry if my reply came across too sharply. Your corollary is also really good advise for dealing with cheesy powers as a GM. Early on in my GMing I was really hesitant to ban much of anything, which reminds me of another cheesy power that I've seen in play: Drain Speed, Area of Effect (Selective), Penetrating, Delayed Return Rate. In the same campaign I cited the "broken teleporter" from, the other player was a mystical brick with (amongst other things) a VPP. They were my most experienced player, and most of the time they didn't even use the VPP, or only used it to give themselves flight. However, at one point they defeated an entire scenario using the aforementioned cheesy power. After a few encounters spent watching my carefully laid plans go to waste because my enemies literally couldn't do anything (which let met tell you is no fun at all), I felt like I had to take that player aside after the game and ask them not to use their VPP to create that spell anymore. Not because I couldn't have built encounters around defending against it, but because I didn't want to have to. I frequently used the HERO System Bestiary or Champions Villains I-III for my encounters, and none of those stat-blocks have Inherent bought for their speed. Moreover the spell was denying both the other player at the table, and myself of having an opportunity to contribute meaningfully. My player agreed that the spell was broken and unfun, and after talking about why they had used that power, it became clear to me that it was because the scenario I had planned was equally cheesy and unfun. So they agreed not to use the cheesy spell anymore, and I agreed to never use that cheesy villain anymore, and everyone was much happier in future scenarios.

I certainly wasn't advising anyone to deny players the fruits of their well spent points, which is why my advise was qualified with the phrase "when you don't want a player abusing their UAA Movement power". Against most minions, just let the players cream them, they were going do so anyway (that is what you put the minions there for in the first place). Picking on one player by constantly making their tactic invalid would be unfair. My advise contended above should only be taken when there is actual "abuse" happening, or you have an equally good reason to do so: For example: If you have one character out of a group of otherwise "standard supers" that has a UAA Movement power, and you know that power frequently ends encounters against single opponents placed outdoors (or near hazards), then placing your encounter with the final boss alone and outdoors (or near a hazard) is just bad encounter design. Unless the plan is for that player to "easy-button" the final boss, you are actually doing every player at the table a disservice by denying them the chance to contribute. All of this being said, I'll let my players build almost anything they want. I've had a player who had both UAA Gates and ​true Gravity-Vector Manipulation (which I house-ruled in as a super expensive and highly limited change environment because HERO doesn't do gravity manipulation very well). It was broken as all heck. The player used those powers frequently and effectively; sometimes he trapped enemies in endless fall loops, sometimes he stuck enemies to the ceiling where they couldn't reach him, etc. I didn't make that player rebuild their character, moreover, I never felt like I had to. Instead I made sure there were reasonable defenses against this characters abilities, or ways for other character's (or the enemies) to still meaningfully contribute to the scenario. I made sure his "broken power" never broke the game by designing my encounters to allow every player to contribute. Sometimes the enemies had flight they could use to reposition themselves. Sometimes they had powerful ranged attacks and (or threw bits of the ceiling at the players). Sometimes the enemies didn't have anything of the sort, but they were usually beaten to bits fairly short order. Sometimes there weren't any enemies at all, and the real challenge was to save as many people from a burning building as they could.

Boots of Elvenkind Cobbled by elves, these flamboyant green boots appear to have been made from so many spring leaves. They are said to make the wearer as swift as the wind, but few adventurers can speak from experience, as they are an atrocious lime green which clashes horribly with everything aside from the fabled Cloak of Elvenkind. For their part, the elves can't see why their fine products aren't more popular. Running (or Leaping) +4m, Zero END (+1/2), Usable as Leaping (+1/4) (7 APs); OIF (-1/2). Cost: 5 points. Cloak of Elvenkind Sewn by elves, this flamboyant green cloak appears to have been made from so many spring leaves. It is said to somehow make even the most dour dwarf as stealthy as an elf, but few adventurers can speak from experience, as it is an atrocious lime green, and clashes horribly with everything aside from the fabled Boots of Elvenkind. For their part, the elves can't see why their fine products aren't more popular. Stealth +2 (7 APs); OIF (-1/2). Cost: 5 points.

Skeleton Key This magical key will reshape itself to unlock almost any door in the multiverse, however it can only be used a few times each day. These trinkets are sometimes called portable thieves, but most actual thieves are offended by the comparison, and the rest own skeleton keys themselves. Lockpicking +6 (15 APs); OAF (-1), 4 Charges (-1). Cost: 5 points.

UAA Movement Powers, and almost anything Megascale can be cheesy. The key to dealing with UAA Movement powers as a GM is: A ) Character design: Make sure they actually have "reasonable" defenses. For example, a UAA Teleport defined as creating a gate the enemy falls into might allow Flying Dodge, Dive for Cover (or even just a successful dex roll to grab the "edge of the gate"), an Abort to Flight or Teleport, and/or being larger than the "gate" as defenses. B ) Encounter design: when you don't want a player abusing their UAA Movement power, place the combat in locations where the power isn't useful. For example, against UAA teleport, place an encounter in a small room who's walls block teleportation. CC/FHC specifically prohibit the use the UAA Teleports to teleport people into objects, but if they try to anyway, I suggest having the teleporter (not the teleportee) suffer feedback damage. When dealing with Megascale, remember collateral damage is a thing. For example, cities might band together against someone who uses a Mega-range or Mega-area blast that hits damages their buildings. When dealing with my favorite type of cheese, high-velocity passing strike cheese: Put an object in the way they can't see (Such as an IPE Barrier), it's not a passing strike if you ram something on accident, it's an uncontrolled move-through.

My favorite type of adventure is the "economic adventure". Which is more or less what I feel like DnD/Pathfinder assumes the GM is running, but which published modules rarely actually provide. We are a party (which is usually more like a very small mercenary company than the fellowship of the ring). We usually have goals of some sort (although likely half of us are just murder hobos looking to avoid justice). We usually aren't the chosen ones; if one of us dies and can't be raised, they can just as easily be replaced by some other knee-biting, puppy-kicking adventuring sort. We have to watch our supplies, or find food and water as we go to avoid dipping into our rations. When we do find magical items (which doesn't have to be often), we give them to whichever party member can benefit from them the most (magic swords to the warrior, magic staves to the mages, etc), or divide them fairly amongst us. We have to track encumbrance (we can't just throw the entire dragon's horde onto Nodwick, or into a bag of holding). Diseases and poisons are actual threats, not just debuffs. When we enter a "dungeon-crawl" (which we frequently will) the challenge is not simply clearing the hex. We must defeat enemies, avoid ambushes, outwit puzzles, defuse traps, and survive the environment by behaving tactically and working as a team; all while conserving our resources for the "Final-Battle". When the final battle is over, if we were victorious, we still have to find some way of hauling our loot back to civilization and make a profit off of the venture so that we can afford to do it all again (but this time be a little better prepared than we were before).