GAZZA

I've noticed a possible problem with 6th edition and its failure to adopt any unified "incomplete character" rules. Let's say I want to build a zombie. It can't be hurt (no STUN); the only way to take it down is to reduce its BODY to negatives (ie it doesn't lose any powers when it takes damage). Obviously the classic way to build this is as an Automaton. You cough up 60 points for the Takes No Stun power. You pay three times the cost for your defences. And you have to pay END for movement and STR. Or - you could build it as a vehicle with an onboard computer. Vehicles get "takes no STUN" for free, and they don't even pay an increased defence cost for it. Their movement and STR is automatically 0 END (admittedly they get a turn mode for Running. That isn't even necessarily inappropriate for a clumsy zombie). And as an added bonus, if you make a giant zombie you can ride inside of it for no extra cost. Have I missed something?

I'm a bit confused about Diving For Cover. I have a few cases; all of them assume that the target is aborting to dive. Attacker declares an Area Effect. In order to be useful, the target will need to know where it is going to hit before diving, otherwise he'll have to gues where to go. So I assume the attacker declares his area of effect before the target decides to dive, and assuming the target can dive completely out of the area successfully, he'll take no damage. Attacker declares a Blast, and spreads it to hit the target's area. Again, I presume the attacker declares this before the target decides to abort to a dive, and assuming he succeeds, the target will avoid the attack. The above two suggest that the attacker must always declare where his attack will land before the target decides to abort, and cannot change his mind once the target dives out of the way. That being the case - what if the attacker simply punches or blasts without using an area of effect? Can the target dive 1 metre and (assuming he makes the DEX roll) completely avoid the attack? This seems weird if true. Dive for Cover seems intended for area attacks (Dodge or Block being more appropriate for single targets), but I can't see anything specifically forbidding using Dive for Cover to avoid single target attacks - and if you can, then it is quite possibly the best avoidance manoeuvre for high SPD/DEX characters. In short - can the attacker move his target after seeing the results of a dive for cover? Can you abort to a dive for cover if you are targetted by a single target attack?

Long time Champions player and GM. Just purchased 6th edition, and running my first 6e session tomorrow night. Wish me luck. On the whole I'm liking 6e. I think some of the changes are a little weird (it still freaks me out that END reserves cost more than just buying the END - OK, the REC is a bit cheaper, I guess), but I'm more than happy to use the rules as written at least for a while. Anyway, on to my question. One of my players wanted a vehicle that could turn into a wristwatch. I thought of a few ways of doing that - the most obvious being a Shapeshift + Shrinking effect (very expensive, and not really what is wanted: he doesn't want it to still be a vehicle when it's a watch) - and settled on giving the Vehicle a Multiform to a computer (a wrist computer - it has a few extra abilities besides telling time, but nothing greatly beyond what a modern PDA can do). (I should mention in passing this is a 4 colour superhero game). So anyway, reasonably happy with the way that worked out, but are there rules somewhere for how big computers are supposed to be? Obviously if they're built into a base, automaton, or vehicle the question is irrelevant, but they don't have to be. I'm assuming that they are "as big as I think is reasonable", but I can't help thinking I've missed something, as I'm also unsure how to handle someone targetting the computer with intent to break it (computers have no defences or BODY, so I'm just going to use the Focus rules and treat it as a breakable focus with AP = base cost).

Re: lets make this work: Instant Change

Re: lets make this work: Instant Change

Re: Permanent Death by Transfer If the "others only" is intended to be the "Aid" part of the Transfer, no problem. If it's the "Drain" part of the Transfer, no limitation at all IMHO (would you give "others only" a limitation if it were a straight Drain BODY?) To the OP: I'm pretty sure that -BODY, achieved by whatever means, is dead. In exactly the same way that your REC per month/Regeneration powers stop working if you're KAed to -BODY, the recovery rate of the Drain or Transfer stops happening if you're adjusted to -BODY.

Re: Characteristic Limitations I think -3/4 has a certain level of "prior art". I haven't read the new UMA yet, but back in 4th edition Aid to DEX only for CV was a -1/4 limitation; I see no reason you wouldn't just add the -1/4 to the -1/2 you'd get for No Figured Characteristics. Balance wise it still works; I make it about 5.14 points per +1 OCV and DCV, which means that 5 point levels for one or the other are still moderately cheaper and 3 point levels (which IME tend to be the most common) pay slightly more for extra flexibility. Although it does tend to make 8 point levels somewhat unappealing.

Re: Some issues with the Ultimate Series... Well, if the FAQs are going to start contradicting the text now... (sigh)

Re: Some issues with the Ultimate Series...

Re: Some issues with the Ultimate Series... It's certainly elegant. I dunno. I was very tempted to list "VPP of Multiforms" as questionable (Ultimate Metamorph makes this the semi-official way of doing power mimicry now). Multiform is borderline abusive at the best of times, and it strikes me that a VPP of Multiforms is basically "turning it up to 11". However, no other way of doing power mimicry has ever really worked properly (you need a massive VPP, and can't mimic frameworks), so I figured that I'd let it slide. Perhaps Possession falls under the same category, but am I alone here in being just a tad concerned about a construct that combines EDM UAA and a VPP of Multiforms? (shrug) I do take Hugh's points on board though - it is a problematic thing to have in game, and Stop Sign stuff should be expected.

Re: Some issues with the Ultimate Series... Err... 5ER pp299: "When Linking two powers, a character should only take Linked for the power that costs fewer Active Points ..." (followed by a bit later about doing it the other way around if you want). and "If a character wants to Link three or more powers, every power but the power that costs the most Active Points may take Linked ..." Seems reasonably clear to me that you can't take it on both powers. I don't disagree about the concept, but Linked - as written - won't get you there. OVERALL: OK, I retract the observation about Radiation, agree with what most people are saying about Aid, and there seems a general consensus that Possession and Redirected Attacks are problematic powers. I spotted another one today: Aura Vision in The Ultimate Mentalist pp161. My problem with this? It says that "No one can disguise his aura ... without really special and bizarre powers". As written, Aura Vision is in the Sight group. Which means that anyone who becomes Invisible to the Sight group has no aura, anyone who Shape Shifts the Sight group can alter their aura, and anyone with Images against the Sight group can alter auras on a basically unlimited basis within their area of effect (albeit with a PER roll to see through it). I wouldn't call any of those "really special or bizarre powers", which means that either Aura Vision is supposed to somehow ignore any of all of these or that this text is just incorrect. "True Aura Vision", one of the options on the next page, fits this concept much better (as in that case you'd have to be able to target Aura Vision specifically with Invisibility et al - and I would call that a "really special or bizarre power". Side note: there's a sort of implication here that Auras are more visible in darker conditions, which might be problematic as well (a clever player could argue that he was able to function without penalty in dim light, since he could target the well-lit auras). I don't believe that's the intent (it notes that Darkness and Flash work, for example) but that makes it tricky to "visualise" - you've got a visible phenomena that appears like light, is washed out by bright lights, but it paradoxically also dependent on light to be seen... oh well, I guess "it's magic!"

Re: Some issues with the Ultimate Series... Yeah, the Mind Control occurred to me as well. Missile Reflection is somewhat tricky (you can't reflect at range); Deflection + a triggered power might work. It's an interesting point. If I'm figuring the numbers correctly, you can whack off 13 REC with 60 active points of Change Environment Temperature (assuming 8" radius), which is certainly comparable. But it won't kill you the way the radiation might. Part of the issue is with the "and doesn't heal" bit - doesn't heal ever? Not even with Healing? But you certainly raise a good point. To DocSamson: interesting Possession idea. The whole "substitute XDM for Desolid" is especially inspired - I like it. I'm less enamoured of Succor; I'm one of those grognards who thinks that if you layer two Suppresses or Succors on someone they should only be affected by the more powerful of the two. But yes, Succor is certainly better priced for this effect.

(and to a lesser extent the UNTIL db as well). Before I get stuck in here, let me say that the general quality of these books (so far I've read UNTIL 1, Ultimate Speedster, Ultimate Brick, Ultimate Metamorph, and Ultimate Mentalist) is excellent. I just want to call a few nagging things to attention - some of which are errors, some of which are merely questionable - in the hopes of either being told why in fact I'm wrong (and the error or questionable judgement is actually fine), or else perhaps to compile some sort of errata. Use of Aid (Questionable): OK, I'm a power gamer - I'll admit that up front to forestall the obvious objections. But there are many cases of example powers that use Aid in a way that is basically useless. For example: Ultimate Brick pp 50: "Adrenaline Surge". For 16 points you get 4d6 of Aid with limitations (including "Self Only"). Or, for the same 16 points, you could buy +24 STR "No Figured Characteristics", and have that STR all the time. Ultimate Metamorph has a similar "Muscle Augmentation" power on pp 98 with the same issue. OK, one can argue that I'm just being munchkinny here, but the fact of the matter is that if I can buy something that works all the time for the same cost as something that only works some of the time, something is wrong. I'm not here to get on the case of Aid's cost - valid as that position may be - but rather to suggest that the simple rule of thumb should be that in the case where the Aid solution is too expensive, buy it with a limited form of the Characteristic or Power instead. +20 STR, No Figured Chars (-1/2), 4 charges last 1 minute (-1/4), Costs END (-1/2), Extra STR fades at 5 points/Turn (-1/2) costs 5 real points, and it seems equally in keeping with the intent of the power. Redirected Attacks (Questionable/Error) Here I'm referring to such constructs as Temporal Ambush from the Ultimate Speedster pp 155. Basically the idea is that you freeze time, alter the aim of someone and make them hit someone else instead. So far so good. The problem is that the mechanical construct for this is ridiculously overcomplicated. You start with a small (6d6) Energy Blast with a +1/2 Variable Advantage (to take account of an advantage that the other guy might have), Variable Special Effects (error - since the attack could have any special effect, this power really needs the +1/2 version of VSE not the Limited Group +1/4 version), and Indirect (to reflect that it's coming from someone else). That's already an expensive power (82 active points) for a 6d6 Energy Blast that might get Armour Piercing, Autofire, or something else that's useful (in fact it's really supposed to be 90 active points, if you accept my VSE correction). Then they go to the extent of noting, "Hmm, wait a minute, if he really fired that attack off, then he'd have lost some END or a charge". So then there's a 45 active point linked Drain designed to knock off a single charge or the END for a single shot. OK, first up: this construct doesn't technically work. It's a Multiple Power Attack that is hitting two different targets (the Drain and the EB). Linked doesn't allow you to ignore the "same target" rule. Secondly, it's monstrously useless. For a total of 127 active points (or higher if you accept my correction), even if it works you've done little or no damage to most EB targets and maybe cost the Drain target on the order of 8 END which will recover at 5 character points/Turn. To make the Drain really knock that END off... well, my best guess is to pump up the recovery period to at least 5 points/minute or worse, and apply some sort of "fades with normal Recovery" limitation. Why not just pump that 127 active points into a 21d6 Energy Blast and maybe use the Rapid Fire option or just spread it a bit to fry both of the targets? There has got to be a better way of doing this. Possession (Questionable/Error): Whether you do it with the optional +2 advantage for Mind Control (Ultimate Mentalist pp44) or with the combination of Mind Control, Desolidification, and Clinging (Bodyjacking - Ultimate Mentalist pp141) you end up with something that doesn't work, and costs too much. Doesn't Work: The Bodyjacking power links the Mind Control to the Desolidification and the Desolidification to the Mind Control, which is not allowed. There must be some "handwaving" going on for the effect, since it says that the possessor acts on the lower of his and the victim's SPD, DEX, EGO, and so forth. The normal rule would be that (probably) all the possessor can do is issue new orders with Mind Control (which fortunately is 0 END and Affects Physical World) on his phases, and that the victim will act according on his own phases using his full DEX, EGO, and so forth - but I concede that the -0 side effects might be intended to cover this. Poorly Constructed/Costs Too Much: This is the main objection. The power is essentially attempting to set up a long term Mind Control - something that would be more easily achieved with a Transform. 6d6 Transform, BOECV (+1), vs EGO instead of BODY (+1/4), No Range (-1/2) for a Major Transform to "someone who obeys my every command while I'm jacked in" costs 135 real points - the same as the Mind Control method. On average this will nail someone with a 10 EGO first shot, and can get someone with up to 20 EGO after a couple of goes. This hypothetical 20 EGO dude against 18d6 Mind Control that needs a +30 will break out of the 18d6 Mind Control on an 11 or less (more than 50% of the time), so you're going to have to nail someone with 20 EGO twice either way. Note that you don't need Affects Physical World here unless you want to jump from one body to another without ever becoming solid. Now, it may seem I've just replaced something that looks virtually identical - but in fact that's not the case. The Transform is, by most definitions, flat out superior. The Transform will last for months; the Mind Control is highly unlikely to do so (every time you change the command they get a breakout roll, and sooner or later they're going to get lucky). The Mind Control has some advantages against targets with Mental Defence, granted, but the Transform works better against high EGO targets that don't have large mental defence (although I'd concede that there's no so many of those). But more to the point, long term Mind Control effects are "supposed" to be done with Transform - even the Ultimate Mentalist itself makes this point. One other side note: the +2 "Possession" advantage for Mind Control that gives these benefits needs to be examined. It ends up costing more for a smaller power, and it is not clear about whether or not it gives the same amount of Telepathy and so forth, nor how you go about applying the Corporeal Remnant or Ranged Bodyjacking options. To be honest, Possession possibly deserves its own power. Of course you can "hack it" with Transform and/or Mind Control, but you could make the same argument for many powers - and possession isn't exactly an uncommon effect in many genres from fantasy, through horror, to superheroes. I'm not going to say that the HSA1 Spirit Rules had the concept nailed, but they might be a starting point. Radioactive Zone (Questionable): From the UNTIL db, pp 172. This version of Change Environment breaks the rule that Change Environment shouldn't be cheaper than comparable attack powers - indeed, it breaks the rule, stomps on it, and then blasts it into its component atoms. OK, that's an exaggeration of course - the fact that the damage is "one time" rather than the continuing effect that (say) an NND Does Body would do is a mitigating factor - but it's certainly much more cost efficient than comparable Change Environment powers. For 60 active points, you can have an 8" radius of radiation that does 550 rads - doing 3d6 BODY that doesn't heal (ever?) to anyone with less than 11 CON, which will be most norms. That's pretty decent - you'd struggle to get an AE attack that killed that efficiently for 60 active points, especially one that ignored conventional defences. Sure, a few points of Life Support and you're golden, but still - I think this is probably too good.

Re: Regeneration/Healing I don't see any fundamental reason that the "Regeneration suite" of modifiers on Healing couldn't be used to add the ability to heal things other than BODY damage. Throw on a +2 "anything depleted by a disease/drug/poison" and you have someone who is not immune to any diseases, but will recover rapidly from them (which seems to be what you're after here). There's also the possibility of throwing the Resurrection modifier on for the Highlander types, or just giving extra BODY "only to stave off death" or some such. Aging is much less problematic - just buy the appropriate Life Support and you're done (perhaps less than full anti-aging if you want someone that just ages very slowly).

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Attacks cost more than defenses; spending 6 points on a 6d6 Ego Attack makes virtually any character without mental defences virtually useless. It allows two slots to be active at once. Not bizarre. Not even particularly uncommon. That is not substantially different from the 40 point version I posted before - you've simply gone from an "all or nothing" approach with regard to primary defences. In play, this character would be using the 3rd slot most of the time. Against specific opponents he'd switch to something else. I assume that's your point, yes? Alternatively: 70 Multipower reserve 7-u 14d6 Energy Blast, Physical 7-u 14d6 Energy Blast, Energy 7-u 7d6 Drain 7-u 14d6 Flash Best case scenario: 14 STUN on average through your defences if you have the right slot up against an energy or physical attack. Drain is still effective against your full Power Defence. Flash is probably not, but it doesn't need a particularly unusual roll for that to change. And that's all if you guess right; guess wrong, and you're not going to get a second guess. Counterargument: why am I using 70 active points here instead of 60? Answer: you're using 35 DEF, and I'm being guided by that as to the appropriate power level of your opposition. NOT a hard guideline - just a guideline (if you can exceed 30 DEF because the cap is not hard, then attackers must be afforded the same privilege). Yes, he might. In which case he wastes an attack. If he guesses right, though... then the defender wastes all subsequent attacks. (In response to my question about whether you could find an example of a character that bore out the apparent rule that adjusting defences was unbalancing...) So that's a "no" then? Point all you like, but that doesn't change a thing. Defensive multipowers are 100% legal by any reading of the RAW. If your motivation for having this discussion was based on what the rules allow, then you're starting from an extremely poor position, because it is abundantly clear that the rules do allow it - and even the "holier than thou" game designers support this (again, cf HyperMan's Steve Long post on page 3). Are we arguing about rules here or possible abuse? Because if it's the former, this isn't even the right forum.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Yes, the same way that other characters with multiple attacks are paying more than someone who has them in a multipower is paying. How's that then? Does he have an attack multipower as well? Normal guy with 10d6 Energy Blast spent 50 points; Flex Attack Boy spent 5 points... You said that against someone with multiple attacks flex guy would adopt a balanced slot and be no worse off. If you're saying that flex guy has only spent 30 points for a 20 pt reserve multipower, then he's a lot worse off; his balanced slot, if he has one, is only 10/10. Granted, he's spend 10 points less than someone with a 20/20 "normal" force field, so maybe he could spend that on a more standard 5/5 Force Field that his 10/10 adds to: but that's still defences of 15/15. So he's going to be taking 5 more STUN from either energy or physical attacks from a guy with the appropriate attack multipower; I call that worse off. Of course he gets flexibility, but for that to count he has to be willing to use it. Attack multipowers trump defence multipowers, which was the original point of the thread, was it not? Are you able to find me an example of a published character that paid double for defences because they were in a power framework? I'm certain I can find examples where they didn't. And yet you insist the rules are on your side? Eh? From a rules perspective, there's no discussion to have. Defence multipowers are legal:There's nothing at all in the rules that forbids them. Granted, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but... Steve Long OKed HyperMan's question, and As far back as 4th edition (Mystic Masters, The Shields Of Dimitrious) there are published characters that possess such things. The point of the discussion is not whether such things are legal, but whether they are abusive. Which is a perfectly fine discussion to have, but if your point is to discuss what the rules say then you really need to be lobbying Steve Long, because they'd need to be changed in order to support your position in that case.

Re: Hero system complexity

Re: Hero system complexity In an absolute sense? Correct. But compared to the d20 equivalents? As I say, there's more than twice as many stats - relatively, that's more complicated (even ignoring that some of them are figured). With a slight caveat - D&D is much better with example equipment than Fantasy Hero here. But neither are rocket science, and I've found relatively few new players that got intimidated by the "let's go shopping!" minigame. Huge caveat about D&D: much more complex if your character is 3rd level or higher. Then your equipment list includes magic items, and that's a lot to absorb for a newbie. Yep, skill resolution is much the same complexity in either. (I'm not going to be boorish and say that 3d6 requires you to add while a d20 requires you to read - if you are trying to teach someone that can't add 3d6, like a small child or something, then you really should consider something simpler than either d20 or Hero). I believe ghost-angel pointed out the big bugbear of d20 (attacks of opportunity), which is indeed complex (though not really necessary for a newbie to know anymore than they'd need to know about all the optional combat maneuvers in Hero). But I would argue that initiative is a simpler concept than the SPD chart. (One among many examples where complexity is a good thing as it leads to greater variation - but on the basis of pure complexity, I'm going to have to rule in favour of d20 here). I didn't mean to imply it was brain surgery, merely that it was more complex than d20. (snip the rest) If it has seemed as if I'm arguing that d20 is better than Hero then I must protest in the strongest possible fashion that this has never been my intention. From the moment I first got and read the rules for Champions (4th edition - I was a latecomer to the Hero party) I never wanted to run another D&D game ever again. I am merely saying that I think Hero is more complex than d20. I hold this as a virtue; the complexity leads to greater internal consistency, flexibility, and extensibility, all of which contribute to Maximum Gaming Fun. The only simulation-style RPGs that I like as much as Hero are Shadowrun and RuneQuest, and I'd be the first to admit that the setting of both of those appeals to me sufficient for me to doubt my objectivity there. But both of those are more complex than d20 as well in the beginning stages. About the least complex simulation-style RPG I've played is a system called Dragon Warriors (published as a series of 6 paperbacks) which was a pretty good introductory game, but one that you're likely to tire of fairly quickly once you get the hang of it. In an ideal world I think the best way to bring newcomers into the hobby would be to use something like Dragon Warriors or perhaps FUDGE as the first few games, and then gradually move them on to the "hard stuff". I wouldn't voluntarily pick Hero or d20 as anyone's first game - but the reality is that I'm more likely to be able to find hardened gamers playing complex games than simple ones, precisely because simple games don't seem to hold long term appeal (unless they're specifically designed to concentrate more on narrative, like HeroQuest or Amber - though in reality HeroQuest isn't anywhere near trivial to master either).

Re: Increasing Target Visibility

Re: Increasing Target Visibility Yeah, agreed. I was kind of annoyed looking through the UNTIL Superpowers DB at all the no sense group custom senses they made - I'm old enough to remember when that sort of sense was rare...

Re: Increasing Target Visibility An arguably better way would be to just define the Suppress as working against "any special effect that makes you invisible", with the appropriate +1/4 advantage.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? It's multiplied by 10, in fact. But so is anything else. Well, I pointed out last post that bricks and martial artists weren't going to get creamed; with no rebuttal, I assumed you either had abandoned that position or else despaired of thumping it into my thick skull. Looking at this post it seems the rebuttal was merely delayed; my apologies. The title of the thread invites comparisons between defence and attack multipowers; that's all I was doing. The brick doesn't get creamed unless the defender has more PD than he can hurt. And if a flexible guy is allowed to have more PD than the brick can hurt, so can other characters - the brick has just happened to find himself in a campaign where he can't reliably hurt people. In any case even Ogre has an NND now, so I don't think it's necessarily true that "one attack characters" are all that common. Mentallists are indeed shut down by a moderate amount of mental defence (again, in or out of a multipower) as an unfortunate side effect of the generally "all or nothing" nature of their powers. Against a normal guy with 15 MD he's just a cheerleader. Against a flexible multipower guy who has a 15 MD slot active, he's at least opening up a hole for one of his buddies to exploit. Err, I would have though that he is indeed worse off. Assume a 40 point multipower with a bunch of 20 DEF slots (one for PD, one for ED, one for MD, one for PD, and one for FD); total cost 50 points. Compare to someone with just a straight 20 PD/20 ED Force Field. If the defender says, "Hmm, that attacker has a multitude of attacks; to be on the safe side, I'll just go with the PD/ED slots" then he's paid 10 points for flexibility that he is now deciding to not use. For 10 points he could instead have bought (say) 1/2 END for his Force Field. So in such a situation he's 2 END per phase worse off. Or, alternatively, if changing defences on the fly was devastating, then there would be equivalent doubling rules for sticking them in power frameworks. A couple of side notes under adjustment powers that mentioned this thing about defences should be applied elsewhere would support your argument, but in its absence it is difficult to support the position that the rules are on your side (especially given Steve Long's response to Hyperman on page 3). But really, who cares what the rules say? The rules support infinite 0 END Succor and Suppress, and on the day someone pulls that stunt in my campaign, Satan will be ice skating to work... For what it's worth, I am at least somewhat skeptical now that Force Fields with exotic defences are necessarily a good idea.

Re: Hero system complexity Generally speaking I was assuming (for both d20 and Hero, and for that matter any other game) that the newbies get helped by the non-newbies. Doing it by yourself... well, one thing I can be certainly agree on is that both would be much harder. In my experience, yes. M&M is an obvious exception (you start at level 10). But then M&M skips the "equipment" phase of d20 which is arguably a lot more complex than the "powers" phase that it replaces it with. I'm not an M&M expert; only tried it a couple of times for 1st edition and noticed a lot of D&D-legacies that didn't work too well. Well, firstly that's not the recommended starting hero points (75 + 75, I believe). While a starting Hero hero (and you can imagine the pain of getting a grammar checker to accept that those two words were supposed to be repeated ) is more relatively powerful than a starting D&D hero (in some ways at least), it's still "like with like" to compare what the two respective games consider to be "starting". But even ignoring that, I would still say that Hero was the more complex. 14 characteristics to buy (some of which are dependent on others) compared to 6 (none of which are dependent on anything). Since I would argue that Hero skills, talents, and perks are at least as complex as D&D feats and skills, the characteristics alone is enough to make the argument. The great thing about Hero though is that once you learn to create characters and use them in combat you've pretty much mastered the system; you don't need to learn a lot more to use your Hero after 50 points of experience than you did when he was freshly minted. The same cannot be said for D&D.

Re: Points Equality I'm kind of torn here. On the one hand I absolutely agree that you can have a fun game where not all the PCs are equally powerful ("points equality" or otherwise; someone who spends 350 points on Knowledge Skills is not going to be the equal in combat of someone with a 70d6 Energy Blast). On the other hand Xander is like Captain America in the Avengers with Thor as a team mate.. Put them in the hands of an author and it all works out fine, because the author will make sure that they get the appropriate amount of the spotlight. But make them PCs, and you face the problem of "everything you can do I can do better" which players are typically more likely to exploit than authors are.

Re: Increasing Target Visibility Well, yes, but... Consider the character who has bought a "No Sense Group" Targetting sense, and buys it Usable By Others At Range, with the special effect that the others see the invisible character outlined by glitterdust. That character has also bypassed Difficult To Dispel or Inherent as well. Not quite the same thing, granted, but the point is that there is often more than one way to do things in Hero.