massey

Ditto!
 
D&D had me _convinced_ that I hated fantasy role playing even more than I dislike the genre overall.
 
Our original "hey, let's play fantasy with Champions!" game was something we just sort of _slipped_ into, and I have to say that the difference between "fantasy HERO (cough-cough-*champions*-cough cough) and D&D wasn't just extreme, it was both liberating and eye-opening.
 
However, I _do_ tend to discourage Lightning Mages from wearing metal armor.
 
 

Well, this is another good argument that has me thinking a lot more, lately, that all characters should be built with multi powers, some of which are limited by appropriate circumstances (weapons of opportunity, etc.), and let everyone build to concept without the argument over who pays points. Really, armor, weapons, equipment, etc., are all just special effects anyway, right?

I have found that a lot of people's approaches to magic tend to be extremely restrictive, so as to rein in potential abuse and excessive power. However in a great many cases magic users wind up SO restricted, they are less useful by quite a margin than say someone who built a thieving archer with good skills or whatever. Personally I prefer to give players quite a bit of leeway in how they want to build characters. However I have an absolute rule which I make very clear to all players at the outset. The character build they submit is NOT their character build. It is a 'strong' suggestion.
 
If someone turns in a character that is well built, interesting, has no unintentional flaws, and fits within the intended power level of the game, they will wind up with the exact character they submitted. If a character is too powerful, they will get back the same character, toned down to the appropriate power. Conversely, if they turn in a character that is too weak, or that has glaring flaws in design, I will improve their character for them so they won't regret. I will not of course violate their conceptions and back stories, as long as they can somehow fit within the world.

I think a lot of people today are influenced by anime and Japanese rpg video games.  They don't want to play Conan, they want to play some character from Final Fantasy 17 or something.
 
Looking at tabletop rpgs or old fantasy novels isn't necessarily going to tell you what your players are really looking for.

Someone brought up Gandalf a few pages ago as an example of an overly powerful wizard, and I forgot to point it out then: we almost never see him actually use magic! It's been too long since I've read the books, but the movies show him use magic maybe 4 times that I can think of off the top of my head. We also see him in a lot of combat with his staff and a sword. So he is a perfect example of a character with no class. (Heh. Makes me think of my favorite Fat Albert joke: you're just like school in the summertime . . . no class). 
 
I say this to point out that I think we're trained to see "classes" when they quite probably aren't actually there in the literature and media. Gandalf is just a really old, wise guy who's good at lore and has picked a lot of life skills. Just like anyone else, really. We've all been Dungeons & Dragons-ified to some degree. The more good examples we can remember, the better we can break that convention!

I’ve been thinking about this, and I disagree.
 
it’s difficult to justify putting a superhero style Force Wall special effect in a rogue’s multipower, sure.  But I’ve seen Captain America’s shield built as a Force Wall before.  Surely we have to leave open the possibility that a player might use the Force Wall power construct to describe something rogue-y.
 
What if Fast Eddie the thief can swat arrows and crossbow bolts out of the air with his sword?  He’s so good he can defend himself and those near him.  But he doesn’t build it with Missile Deflection (he doesn’t want the chance of blowing an OCV roll).  So he buys it as a 12 PD Force Wall.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

The limitations of other games do not apply here.  If you want to include them you can, but do not pretend that it's the default setting.

Just toying around here, but one way to do it might be to use modern day values for everything.  I know that's not accurate, but to make it seem more "realistic" you could also assume that the average peasant is both flat broke (cap it at the US federal poverty line for a family of 4), and that they only get about 10% of that in "cash".  The rest is taken care of with barter or things they do themselves.  So Farmer John with his wife and 6 kids is still capped at $26K a year.  That's not a lot, and really he only gets about $2,600 a year that he can spend on things.  The rest isn't actually income, it's the food that he grows and the clothes that his wife makes, and the fact that he'll help you repair damage to your house if you do the same for him.
 
So peasants would be really poor as far as what they could actually buy.  Treating the family to a McDonald's meal would be a major expense.  As long as they stay on the farm and just exist, they don't have to worry about it.  They're considered to be self-sufficient (at a very poor level, anyway).  But if they have to go buy a new plow or something, and they can't trade with the local blacksmith, their buying power is extremely limited.
 
Then you just convert regular dollars into whatever fantasy money you like.   If you want to go with the 3rd ed D&D system, 100 copper = 10 silver = 1 gold.  If 1 silver piece equals 1 dollar (as suggested above), then an average sword would probably cost you 30 or 40 gold.  A very high quality one might cost you 100 gold or more.
 
I'm sure if you wanted to analyze the economics of this, it wouldn't quite work out right (it'll definitely fall apart when you look at building castles).  But if all you want is an easy price system to use for adventuring gear and everyday things, and you need to justify why all the peasants are still poor, this might work okay. 

Just toying around here, but one way to do it might be to use modern day values for everything.  I know that's not accurate, but to make it seem more "realistic" you could also assume that the average peasant is both flat broke (cap it at the US federal poverty line for a family of 4), and that they only get about 10% of that in "cash".  The rest is taken care of with barter or things they do themselves.  So Farmer John with his wife and 6 kids is still capped at $26K a year.  That's not a lot, and really he only gets about $2,600 a year that he can spend on things.  The rest isn't actually income, it's the food that he grows and the clothes that his wife makes, and the fact that he'll help you repair damage to your house if you do the same for him.
 
So peasants would be really poor as far as what they could actually buy.  Treating the family to a McDonald's meal would be a major expense.  As long as they stay on the farm and just exist, they don't have to worry about it.  They're considered to be self-sufficient (at a very poor level, anyway).  But if they have to go buy a new plow or something, and they can't trade with the local blacksmith, their buying power is extremely limited.
 
Then you just convert regular dollars into whatever fantasy money you like.   If you want to go with the 3rd ed D&D system, 100 copper = 10 silver = 1 gold.  If 1 silver piece equals 1 dollar (as suggested above), then an average sword would probably cost you 30 or 40 gold.  A very high quality one might cost you 100 gold or more.
 
I'm sure if you wanted to analyze the economics of this, it wouldn't quite work out right (it'll definitely fall apart when you look at building castles).  But if all you want is an easy price system to use for adventuring gear and everyday things, and you need to justify why all the peasants are still poor, this might work okay. 

Here's something to keep in mind -- the actual stats of the mook don't matter so much as does how much lower they are than the PCs.  Telling you that Vinnie the Snitch has an OCV of 5 doesn't help you if you don't know where the PCs should be.
 
A difference in OCV/DCV of 3 or more will mean that the character with the higher number will have a much easier time of hitting his opponent, while the character with the lower number will have a much harder time.
 
https://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/3_dice_rolls.php#.XtFulkRKiUk
 
This page has a 3D6 distribution chart at the bottom.  In the middle column they have percentage chance to roll under a given number.  So let's say that Vinnie the Snitch has an OCV/DCV of 5.  If Captain Amazing has an OCV/DCV of 9, then that means he needs a 15- to hit, whereas Vinnie will need a 7- to hit the good Captain.  15- means the Captain is hitting 95% of the time, while 7- means the gangster hits only 16% of the time (about 1 in 6).  Of course if Captain Amazing decides to dodge, his DCV goes up by 3 and Vinnie needs a 4- (less than 2%) to hit.  Whereas if our thug dodges, his DCV goes to 8 and the Captain still hits on a 12- (74% of the time).
 
So the OCV/DCV difference is important.  Another thing to look at is the Speed differential.  Having an extra 2 points of Speed is a big advantage in combat.  A Speed 4 character will have a lot of trouble with a Speed 6 character if all other things are equal.  The Speed 6 character can afford to block, dodge, take recoveries, or other defensive actions that the Speed 4 character can't.
 
Then look at the average damage of an attack compared to a character's Def + Con, and Def + Stun.  If your heroes throw 12D6 attacks, the average damage is 42 Stun and 12 Body.  Hitting a character with 8 Def means they take 4 Body and 34 Stun.  If that exceeds their Con score, they are stunned and lose their next action.  If it exceeds their current Stun total, it means they are unconscious.  What this means is that superheroes can often "spread" their ranged attacks and affect multiple characters who are standing side by side.  If Captain Amazing shoots his Optic Vision at a crowd of thugs, (4 guys sitting at a card table), he may be able to hit all four of them by only spreading a few dice.  If his 12D6 attack lowers down to 8D6, then he's still doing 28 Stun on average, minus their 8 Def and each character is taking 20 Stun.  He will almost certainly cost all those thugs their next phase, and might knock them all out.
 
In general, because I'm lazy, I tend to give generic thugs and mooks straight 15s in their primary physical stats.  15 Str, 15 Dex, 15 Con.  Give them 10 PD and ED and a 3 Speed.  5 OCV/DCV and about 25 Stun is good.  They'll carry weapons that are in the 6-8 damage class range.  These are not meant to be threats to superheroes.  They are very dangerous threats to normal people though.  But most of the heroes in our games have OCV/DCV of 8 or above, Speeds of 5-7, and Defenses of 30 or so.  They chuck 12+D6 attacks and so mooks are little more than targets for them.  But that's how we like to play, mooks are just the warmup for the real fights.

So many years ago (during 5th edition revised) I got an idea for a campaign.  
 
A few false starts
 
Decided to make it a book (never happened)
 
Started it about a year and a half ago.
 
In the first time in 40 years of gaming, a campaign ended at a natural end...I have NEVER had that happen before in any RPG

Here's something to keep in mind -- the actual stats of the mook don't matter so much as does how much lower they are than the PCs.  Telling you that Vinnie the Snitch has an OCV of 5 doesn't help you if you don't know where the PCs should be.
 
A difference in OCV/DCV of 3 or more will mean that the character with the higher number will have a much easier time of hitting his opponent, while the character with the lower number will have a much harder time.
 
https://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/3_dice_rolls.php#.XtFulkRKiUk
 
This page has a 3D6 distribution chart at the bottom.  In the middle column they have percentage chance to roll under a given number.  So let's say that Vinnie the Snitch has an OCV/DCV of 5.  If Captain Amazing has an OCV/DCV of 9, then that means he needs a 15- to hit, whereas Vinnie will need a 7- to hit the good Captain.  15- means the Captain is hitting 95% of the time, while 7- means the gangster hits only 16% of the time (about 1 in 6).  Of course if Captain Amazing decides to dodge, his DCV goes up by 3 and Vinnie needs a 4- (less than 2%) to hit.  Whereas if our thug dodges, his DCV goes to 8 and the Captain still hits on a 12- (74% of the time).
 
So the OCV/DCV difference is important.  Another thing to look at is the Speed differential.  Having an extra 2 points of Speed is a big advantage in combat.  A Speed 4 character will have a lot of trouble with a Speed 6 character if all other things are equal.  The Speed 6 character can afford to block, dodge, take recoveries, or other defensive actions that the Speed 4 character can't.
 
Then look at the average damage of an attack compared to a character's Def + Con, and Def + Stun.  If your heroes throw 12D6 attacks, the average damage is 42 Stun and 12 Body.  Hitting a character with 8 Def means they take 4 Body and 34 Stun.  If that exceeds their Con score, they are stunned and lose their next action.  If it exceeds their current Stun total, it means they are unconscious.  What this means is that superheroes can often "spread" their ranged attacks and affect multiple characters who are standing side by side.  If Captain Amazing shoots his Optic Vision at a crowd of thugs, (4 guys sitting at a card table), he may be able to hit all four of them by only spreading a few dice.  If his 12D6 attack lowers down to 8D6, then he's still doing 28 Stun on average, minus their 8 Def and each character is taking 20 Stun.  He will almost certainly cost all those thugs their next phase, and might knock them all out.
 
In general, because I'm lazy, I tend to give generic thugs and mooks straight 15s in their primary physical stats.  15 Str, 15 Dex, 15 Con.  Give them 10 PD and ED and a 3 Speed.  5 OCV/DCV and about 25 Stun is good.  They'll carry weapons that are in the 6-8 damage class range.  These are not meant to be threats to superheroes.  They are very dangerous threats to normal people though.  But most of the heroes in our games have OCV/DCV of 8 or above, Speeds of 5-7, and Defenses of 30 or so.  They chuck 12+D6 attacks and so mooks are little more than targets for them.  But that's how we like to play, mooks are just the warmup for the real fights.

Here's something to keep in mind -- the actual stats of the mook don't matter so much as does how much lower they are than the PCs.  Telling you that Vinnie the Snitch has an OCV of 5 doesn't help you if you don't know where the PCs should be.
 
A difference in OCV/DCV of 3 or more will mean that the character with the higher number will have a much easier time of hitting his opponent, while the character with the lower number will have a much harder time.
 
https://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/3_dice_rolls.php#.XtFulkRKiUk
 
This page has a 3D6 distribution chart at the bottom.  In the middle column they have percentage chance to roll under a given number.  So let's say that Vinnie the Snitch has an OCV/DCV of 5.  If Captain Amazing has an OCV/DCV of 9, then that means he needs a 15- to hit, whereas Vinnie will need a 7- to hit the good Captain.  15- means the Captain is hitting 95% of the time, while 7- means the gangster hits only 16% of the time (about 1 in 6).  Of course if Captain Amazing decides to dodge, his DCV goes up by 3 and Vinnie needs a 4- (less than 2%) to hit.  Whereas if our thug dodges, his DCV goes to 8 and the Captain still hits on a 12- (74% of the time).
 
So the OCV/DCV difference is important.  Another thing to look at is the Speed differential.  Having an extra 2 points of Speed is a big advantage in combat.  A Speed 4 character will have a lot of trouble with a Speed 6 character if all other things are equal.  The Speed 6 character can afford to block, dodge, take recoveries, or other defensive actions that the Speed 4 character can't.
 
Then look at the average damage of an attack compared to a character's Def + Con, and Def + Stun.  If your heroes throw 12D6 attacks, the average damage is 42 Stun and 12 Body.  Hitting a character with 8 Def means they take 4 Body and 34 Stun.  If that exceeds their Con score, they are stunned and lose their next action.  If it exceeds their current Stun total, it means they are unconscious.  What this means is that superheroes can often "spread" their ranged attacks and affect multiple characters who are standing side by side.  If Captain Amazing shoots his Optic Vision at a crowd of thugs, (4 guys sitting at a card table), he may be able to hit all four of them by only spreading a few dice.  If his 12D6 attack lowers down to 8D6, then he's still doing 28 Stun on average, minus their 8 Def and each character is taking 20 Stun.  He will almost certainly cost all those thugs their next phase, and might knock them all out.
 
In general, because I'm lazy, I tend to give generic thugs and mooks straight 15s in their primary physical stats.  15 Str, 15 Dex, 15 Con.  Give them 10 PD and ED and a 3 Speed.  5 OCV/DCV and about 25 Stun is good.  They'll carry weapons that are in the 6-8 damage class range.  These are not meant to be threats to superheroes.  They are very dangerous threats to normal people though.  But most of the heroes in our games have OCV/DCV of 8 or above, Speeds of 5-7, and Defenses of 30 or so.  They chuck 12+D6 attacks and so mooks are little more than targets for them.  But that's how we like to play, mooks are just the warmup for the real fights.

Just toying around here, but one way to do it might be to use modern day values for everything.  I know that's not accurate, but to make it seem more "realistic" you could also assume that the average peasant is both flat broke (cap it at the US federal poverty line for a family of 4), and that they only get about 10% of that in "cash".  The rest is taken care of with barter or things they do themselves.  So Farmer John with his wife and 6 kids is still capped at $26K a year.  That's not a lot, and really he only gets about $2,600 a year that he can spend on things.  The rest isn't actually income, it's the food that he grows and the clothes that his wife makes, and the fact that he'll help you repair damage to your house if you do the same for him.
 
So peasants would be really poor as far as what they could actually buy.  Treating the family to a McDonald's meal would be a major expense.  As long as they stay on the farm and just exist, they don't have to worry about it.  They're considered to be self-sufficient (at a very poor level, anyway).  But if they have to go buy a new plow or something, and they can't trade with the local blacksmith, their buying power is extremely limited.
 
Then you just convert regular dollars into whatever fantasy money you like.   If you want to go with the 3rd ed D&D system, 100 copper = 10 silver = 1 gold.  If 1 silver piece equals 1 dollar (as suggested above), then an average sword would probably cost you 30 or 40 gold.  A very high quality one might cost you 100 gold or more.
 
I'm sure if you wanted to analyze the economics of this, it wouldn't quite work out right (it'll definitely fall apart when you look at building castles).  But if all you want is an easy price system to use for adventuring gear and everyday things, and you need to justify why all the peasants are still poor, this might work okay. 

Just toying around here, but one way to do it might be to use modern day values for everything.  I know that's not accurate, but to make it seem more "realistic" you could also assume that the average peasant is both flat broke (cap it at the US federal poverty line for a family of 4), and that they only get about 10% of that in "cash".  The rest is taken care of with barter or things they do themselves.  So Farmer John with his wife and 6 kids is still capped at $26K a year.  That's not a lot, and really he only gets about $2,600 a year that he can spend on things.  The rest isn't actually income, it's the food that he grows and the clothes that his wife makes, and the fact that he'll help you repair damage to your house if you do the same for him.
 
So peasants would be really poor as far as what they could actually buy.  Treating the family to a McDonald's meal would be a major expense.  As long as they stay on the farm and just exist, they don't have to worry about it.  They're considered to be self-sufficient (at a very poor level, anyway).  But if they have to go buy a new plow or something, and they can't trade with the local blacksmith, their buying power is extremely limited.
 
Then you just convert regular dollars into whatever fantasy money you like.   If you want to go with the 3rd ed D&D system, 100 copper = 10 silver = 1 gold.  If 1 silver piece equals 1 dollar (as suggested above), then an average sword would probably cost you 30 or 40 gold.  A very high quality one might cost you 100 gold or more.
 
I'm sure if you wanted to analyze the economics of this, it wouldn't quite work out right (it'll definitely fall apart when you look at building castles).  But if all you want is an easy price system to use for adventuring gear and everyday things, and you need to justify why all the peasants are still poor, this might work okay. 

I understand that it might offend your sensibilities, but your original statement ("It's really hard to justify putting Force Wall in a rogue's inherent multipower, or Flight in a knight's") assumes that non-magical characters would be allowed a multipower of abilities.  If a campaign is using "non-powered Powers" then I think this one is fine.  I'd probably slap "no range" and maybe "only vs projectiles" on it and you're good to go.  Remember that Force Wall does not equal Wall of Force.
 
I think people are relying on a bunch of unspoken assumptions about how the game will work, and what will be allowed in it.  Do characters have to pay points for equipment?  Can characters purchase powers without a magic spell justification?  Will any characters be allowed to use frameworks at all?  Are you trying to copy a particular game system or setting?  How you answer these questions will seriously affect how you view magic spell multipowers.  Just keep in mind that if you treat characters differently, you're gonna have problems balancing them.

If I could make a suggestion, it would be this.  The fewer differences in game mechanics between character types, the easier it is to balance.  If you have an entirely separate "magic system" that non-spellcasters never use, there's a good chance it's not going to be balanced properly.  Yeah it'll feel different in play, but it'll be really wonky too.  Mages will either be really awesome or they'll really suck.
 
Instead, try things like this:
 
1)  If you're going to allow basic equipment for free (i.e., costs money, not points), then also create some low level magic that only costs money.  It can be more expensive than a normal tool, but a wizard shouldn't be paying points on something the fighter gets for free.  Having the special effect of "magic" shouldn't suck all your points away.
 
Bob the wizard's apprentice sets out on an adventure.  He has a spellbook of entry-level magic.  The Fire Bolt spell summons a flaming arrow, just like an archer could shoot.  The Handy Rope spell conjures a rope with a grappling hook on the end.  The Slip and Slide spell covers a 10'x10' area and requires Dex checks to walk across it, just like if you'd dumped a bucket of olive oil on the ground.  Bob has a dozen spells or so in his spellbook, none of them that much different than a regular mundane effect.  He trades the encumberance of carrying around all that crap for the requirement of making a magic skill roll.  Should he really have to pay points on top of that?  Probably not.
 
Bob also has a wand of charm person.  It makes targets friendly to you.  The wand costs 100 gold to buy new, and comes with 10 charges.  It requires a magic roll to use.  The GM secretly decides that the wand makes a target friendlier by the exact same amount as if you had given them a gift worth 10 gold and made a persuasion roll.  So it's really just a mundane ability with a magic special effect and a swapped skill roll.
 
Finally Bob has a handful of one-use magic scrolls.  These effects are more powerful, but are still rough equivalents to things you can do in a non-magical way.  The Magic Ship scroll conjures a sailing vessel that lasts for one week (or month, whatever).  The scroll just happens to cost the same amount as buying tickets for your group on a normal sailing ship.  Yeah it's more portable (you could use it on a deserted island), but it's also like a gift certificate -- you might buy it and never use it.  Scroll of Disarmed Dungeon sets off the first 5 traps in a dungeon.  It costs the same as hiring a gang of local dimwits to run ahead of the party and try opening doors and chests ("Hey Dave, go see what's around that corner, okay?").
 
Depending on how creative you wanna get, you could simulate a lot of things a wizard does with equipment like that.  All these things are either GM created or GM approved.  The mage takes Power Skill: Magic, Weapon Familiarity: spellbooks, wands, scrolls, etc, and maybe a complementary KS for whatever type of magic he's using.  Then he can buy combat skill levels with his preferred abilities.  That's not much different than what a fighter would do.  You've just let him change the special effect.
 
2)  If you're gonna let one player do it, you should probably let other players do it too.  If one guy takes a multipower, then it should be okay for other players as well.  If Ricky the knight wants to have a set of "knightly abilities", such as an ED Force Wall only vs dragon breath (requires him to heroically hold up his shield in front of him), a blow where he shatters his enemy's weapon (dispel vs HKA), and a powerful rallying cry (+30 Pre, only to inspire the troops), well there's nothing really wrong with that.  The wizard player didn't do anything worthy of reward by choosing to play a magical character.
 
I think if you allow things like that, where non-magical characters don't feel like they're penalized, then players are more likely to pick them.  This prevents the "everybody plays a mage" problem where everybody wants the cool powers and has to be a wizard to justify it.
 
 

I understand that it might offend your sensibilities, but your original statement ("It's really hard to justify putting Force Wall in a rogue's inherent multipower, or Flight in a knight's") assumes that non-magical characters would be allowed a multipower of abilities.  If a campaign is using "non-powered Powers" then I think this one is fine.  I'd probably slap "no range" and maybe "only vs projectiles" on it and you're good to go.  Remember that Force Wall does not equal Wall of Force.
 
I think people are relying on a bunch of unspoken assumptions about how the game will work, and what will be allowed in it.  Do characters have to pay points for equipment?  Can characters purchase powers without a magic spell justification?  Will any characters be allowed to use frameworks at all?  Are you trying to copy a particular game system or setting?  How you answer these questions will seriously affect how you view magic spell multipowers.  Just keep in mind that if you treat characters differently, you're gonna have problems balancing them.

If I could make a suggestion, it would be this.  The fewer differences in game mechanics between character types, the easier it is to balance.  If you have an entirely separate "magic system" that non-spellcasters never use, there's a good chance it's not going to be balanced properly.  Yeah it'll feel different in play, but it'll be really wonky too.  Mages will either be really awesome or they'll really suck.
 
Instead, try things like this:
 
1)  If you're going to allow basic equipment for free (i.e., costs money, not points), then also create some low level magic that only costs money.  It can be more expensive than a normal tool, but a wizard shouldn't be paying points on something the fighter gets for free.  Having the special effect of "magic" shouldn't suck all your points away.
 
Bob the wizard's apprentice sets out on an adventure.  He has a spellbook of entry-level magic.  The Fire Bolt spell summons a flaming arrow, just like an archer could shoot.  The Handy Rope spell conjures a rope with a grappling hook on the end.  The Slip and Slide spell covers a 10'x10' area and requires Dex checks to walk across it, just like if you'd dumped a bucket of olive oil on the ground.  Bob has a dozen spells or so in his spellbook, none of them that much different than a regular mundane effect.  He trades the encumberance of carrying around all that crap for the requirement of making a magic skill roll.  Should he really have to pay points on top of that?  Probably not.
 
Bob also has a wand of charm person.  It makes targets friendly to you.  The wand costs 100 gold to buy new, and comes with 10 charges.  It requires a magic roll to use.  The GM secretly decides that the wand makes a target friendlier by the exact same amount as if you had given them a gift worth 10 gold and made a persuasion roll.  So it's really just a mundane ability with a magic special effect and a swapped skill roll.
 
Finally Bob has a handful of one-use magic scrolls.  These effects are more powerful, but are still rough equivalents to things you can do in a non-magical way.  The Magic Ship scroll conjures a sailing vessel that lasts for one week (or month, whatever).  The scroll just happens to cost the same amount as buying tickets for your group on a normal sailing ship.  Yeah it's more portable (you could use it on a deserted island), but it's also like a gift certificate -- you might buy it and never use it.  Scroll of Disarmed Dungeon sets off the first 5 traps in a dungeon.  It costs the same as hiring a gang of local dimwits to run ahead of the party and try opening doors and chests ("Hey Dave, go see what's around that corner, okay?").
 
Depending on how creative you wanna get, you could simulate a lot of things a wizard does with equipment like that.  All these things are either GM created or GM approved.  The mage takes Power Skill: Magic, Weapon Familiarity: spellbooks, wands, scrolls, etc, and maybe a complementary KS for whatever type of magic he's using.  Then he can buy combat skill levels with his preferred abilities.  That's not much different than what a fighter would do.  You've just let him change the special effect.
 
2)  If you're gonna let one player do it, you should probably let other players do it too.  If one guy takes a multipower, then it should be okay for other players as well.  If Ricky the knight wants to have a set of "knightly abilities", such as an ED Force Wall only vs dragon breath (requires him to heroically hold up his shield in front of him), a blow where he shatters his enemy's weapon (dispel vs HKA), and a powerful rallying cry (+30 Pre, only to inspire the troops), well there's nothing really wrong with that.  The wizard player didn't do anything worthy of reward by choosing to play a magical character.
 
I think if you allow things like that, where non-magical characters don't feel like they're penalized, then players are more likely to pick them.  This prevents the "everybody plays a mage" problem where everybody wants the cool powers and has to be a wizard to justify it.
 
 

I you waggle a few fingers and wave an arm, then it's a normal gesture. If you have to do the Hokey Pokey or equivalent, it's complex gestures.

I understand that it might offend your sensibilities, but your original statement ("It's really hard to justify putting Force Wall in a rogue's inherent multipower, or Flight in a knight's") assumes that non-magical characters would be allowed a multipower of abilities.  If a campaign is using "non-powered Powers" then I think this one is fine.  I'd probably slap "no range" and maybe "only vs projectiles" on it and you're good to go.  Remember that Force Wall does not equal Wall of Force.
 
I think people are relying on a bunch of unspoken assumptions about how the game will work, and what will be allowed in it.  Do characters have to pay points for equipment?  Can characters purchase powers without a magic spell justification?  Will any characters be allowed to use frameworks at all?  Are you trying to copy a particular game system or setting?  How you answer these questions will seriously affect how you view magic spell multipowers.  Just keep in mind that if you treat characters differently, you're gonna have problems balancing them.

Just toying around here, but one way to do it might be to use modern day values for everything.  I know that's not accurate, but to make it seem more "realistic" you could also assume that the average peasant is both flat broke (cap it at the US federal poverty line for a family of 4), and that they only get about 10% of that in "cash".  The rest is taken care of with barter or things they do themselves.  So Farmer John with his wife and 6 kids is still capped at $26K a year.  That's not a lot, and really he only gets about $2,600 a year that he can spend on things.  The rest isn't actually income, it's the food that he grows and the clothes that his wife makes, and the fact that he'll help you repair damage to your house if you do the same for him.
 
So peasants would be really poor as far as what they could actually buy.  Treating the family to a McDonald's meal would be a major expense.  As long as they stay on the farm and just exist, they don't have to worry about it.  They're considered to be self-sufficient (at a very poor level, anyway).  But if they have to go buy a new plow or something, and they can't trade with the local blacksmith, their buying power is extremely limited.
 
Then you just convert regular dollars into whatever fantasy money you like.   If you want to go with the 3rd ed D&D system, 100 copper = 10 silver = 1 gold.  If 1 silver piece equals 1 dollar (as suggested above), then an average sword would probably cost you 30 or 40 gold.  A very high quality one might cost you 100 gold or more.
 
I'm sure if you wanted to analyze the economics of this, it wouldn't quite work out right (it'll definitely fall apart when you look at building castles).  But if all you want is an easy price system to use for adventuring gear and everyday things, and you need to justify why all the peasants are still poor, this might work okay. 

I'm running a Fantasy Hero campaign set in the Hyborian Kingdoms, so I created a Hero Designer prefab with many different coins from several kingdoms with their relative values. It is easily adaptable to any fantasy setting, and can be downloaded here:
 
https://www.herogames.com/files/file/316-fh-hyborian-currency/
 
I based everything off the generic "silver piece" where 1SP = $1.00.  Feel free to adjust values accordingly.

No; that's a gross over-simplification, leading to the inaccurate interpretation that you are not welcome to do whatever you want in HERO.
 
We are at that point where we are stating that because something exists or is already modeled in other systems is _not_, in _any_ way, indicative of what we "must" do in Fantasy HERO.
 
I mean, I thought an emphatic "Screw D&D!" implied that playing it wasn't being suggested as an actual alternative.

In answer to the original question, I'd say that multipowers are great if your character is looking at having a wide variety of spells that have a similar active point cost.  If you want a fireball spell, and a lightning bolt spell, and an invisible wall spell, etc, and you plan on using them one at a time?  Then multipowers rock.  That's what they're for.  But if you are planning on duplicating other game systems, then why not just play those games instead?  The Hero System lets you play characters you couldn't in other game systems.
 
Let's say that Jarak the Necromancer is going to be the campaign's big bad guy.  He knows many ancient arts and is an extremely lethal opponent.  He's got a library of spellbooks and a moldy old castle.  So how do we build Jarak?  Just go through the book and give him every necromancy spell?  Nah, no need for that.  Jarak is a skilled swordsman, so he's got good physical stats and several combat levels, like a PC fighter.  He's got magic that lets him command the dead, so we give him several different Followers, one of whom is a powerful vampire (who he enslaved off-camera), then a bunch of low-power skeletal minions.  He's got an array of odd knowledge skills.  His castle has a mystic pool in the catacombs beneath it, where Jarak can communicate with the spirits of the dead (Clairsentience sight and hearing with extra range -- the dead show him things -- OIF immobile, extra time 1 hour for the ritual).  And he's got two actual "magic spells".  One of them is a death curse, a slow acting Body Drain, Continuous, Invisible.  It takes effect over the course of about a week, so it's not that great in combat.  He generally uses it to assassinate high ranking people, which he can then deny.  The other is a campaign-oriented ritual to summon the god of the dead (or its avatar).  It has a load of limitations on it (week long casting time, requires the blood of 100 virgins, etc), and hopefully he never actually gets to cast it.  Oh, and maybe he's got a magic ring that allows him to change into a raven.
 
So we've got our big bad necromancer.  He makes sense in his game world.  You can tell a story around him.  It's easy to see why he's so feared.  But most of his "magic" doesn't require any kind of spells.  He's got some items and a bunch of skills, and maybe a couple of odd powers (LS: Aging and LS: Poison) that a normal person wouldn't have.  But there's no reason this guy would ever be interested in a multipower.  His "Death Curse" and "Summon Avatar" spells are going to be of vastly different active point levels, with probably very few similar limitations.  It's cheaper to just buy them separately.