DasBroot

This is my read on it as well. It's step one of showing the world what he means by 'you're on notice' - he's not averse to military action. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - I understand the backlash against the 'World Police' image, but frankly I'm ok with it if it means saving innocent people. Always have been. Step two will determine how the people he's trying to impress/cow see it in the long run, though. It's largely a slap on the wrist, as far as military responses are concerned, and if it's the extent of the response then some aggressors will shrug and write it off as a cost of doing business. If it leads to a coalition forming that removes a dictator who has committed war crimes from power while (and this is very important, and a big part of why the conflict continues) NOT leaving a power vacuum for ISIS to fill then maybe, just maybe, someone else out there might think twice.

This is exactly my issue with the BACE. "X-Cutioner's Song" was when I tuned out - and it was just limited to all the X books at the time. Don't progress the story through side titles - keep them optional. Have the characters react to the situation at hand, like the mentioned Cask of Winter. I know some crossovers still succeed at this - I didn't feel like I missed anything when I bought the World War Hulk trade, even though reading the synopsis at Wikipedia I know things were done in the crossover issues - they just didn't matter in the long run (one team fought the Brood, someone else fought at couple of the Warborn, etc). That's doing it right.

Exactly what I was alluding to in my first post in the thread. Batman vs Captain America would have been a great street level finish. Captain America vs Vegeta, though? Come on... one of these two literally survives being thrown through mountains and can destroy a planet with a 30 second charge up. Without even going super saiyan. There's no amount of 'fighting spirit' that can overcome that.

They did. Ben was Richard's 'older' brother. That's where they've always left it, and it's really probably good enough. Still... super old Aunt May is a little extreme. But a great character.

"Hey, Zeus.... I betcha can't hit that rabbit!" "Hold my beer!"

I'd find a way to make the powers work during the day but be harder to use - like Extra Endurance (which I think actually has a 'doesn't apply in this situation' modifier. So x2 or x3 endurance, doesn't apply at night. Suddenly you're able to contribute during the day but you're at your best when the sun's gone down. I think side effect might have a similar modifier as well. Don't have access to my books or the builder. Or perhaps recoverable charges which recover in special situations (at night). You have 8 blasts you can use an encounter in the evening, no problem, since they recover afterwards, but only 8 blasts you can use in the entire *day* before the sun goes down - make them count.

There are a few here that I like but didn't pick because they would have been better suited for the street bracket, in my opinion, and a few that I think are just too strong to fit. Vegeta? Power Girl? Professor X? Wonder Woman? Those are like hunting grasshoppers with howitzers to everyone else in the bracket.

In my opinion both she (52) and Sally Field (65 when Amazing first came out) are better fits for an 'aunt' to a teenager anyways (to be the Aunt May we all know and love the Parkers would have had to be in their late 40s when they had Peter, with May being 10 to 15 years older than them. It's certainly POSSIBLE but it's not likely.)

I wonder if a "SHAZAM!" could be heard echoing through the canyon a second earlier?

All pretty good points (and I can see where Steve is coming from). More careful thought about a DC cap and what affects it instead of using an AP cap would probably accomplish half of what I want to accomplish - I'm going to keep it mind if my players (I've got two of six making sample characters right now) decide that this variant is just not any fun - but they're both enthusiastic about it (in a 'Challenge accepted!' kind of way). The other half, though, is the avoiding of big RC savings for certain concepts (and even all around greater experience with the HERO system). In exchange I open up the door for 160 active points of advantages on 80 point powers - and 240 AP is a much higher active point cap than I've ever allowed. I really am uncertain whether increasing the quality of the powers selected in order to reduce the quantity of powers (especially attributes) will turn out to be wise. One guy is actually kind of relieved - he's a min/maxer but also a team player, and if he doesn't squeeze each and every point out of a character (-1/4 to -1 or more on everything) he feels that he's let the group down. He just doesn't seem to get how useless he makes a few other players who didn't do that feel, and never has - he just knows that people are upset with his character for some reason. That's a table specific problem, though, and my greatest failing as a GM.

Definitely. And the point value of the limitation should also determine how often the GM sets an adventure 'during the day'. If they took it as a -1, for example, they have no cause to complain if they're at half point value for literally half of the adventures. On the other hand if they took it as a -1/4 they would be fully justified in being upset at that. Time or environmental specific limitations are tricky to adjudicate for that very reason, however - if the current adventure takes place during the day, for example, but runs three or four sessions during the same 'day' without noticeable time passing between scenes then even the -1 guy SHOULD be a little upset. Even if every other adventure to date had been run at night: balance wise that's fine - it's finally come up to bite him for once - but it's not a political or fun decision.

I could see that (as an aside 'Does Body' is one of my few house rule flat out disallowed advantages for a reason). One of the players I bounced it off so far suggested an advantage level maximum - either +2 or +3. I was already considering it - in fact my first idea involved HAVING to reach 0 with Limitations - so a -2 for a +2 at maximum (I called it "Net 0"). I backed off on that because some powers (like Life Support on a skeleton) should be advantaged (Inherent - you can't make the skelton drown by Dispelling its Life Support: Self Contained Breathing) but shouldn't have limitations (Always On is NOT a limitation on life support - nobody has ever successfully convinced me that it is).

Your example Blast one is almost identical to the scenario that prompted me to make this thread when I was building a few sample characters. Certain advantages almost become no-brainers to take, especially on attack powers, if you're using a Real Cost cap instead of Damage class cap. No END or autofire is another. While it might promote some creativity with seldomly chosen advantages (like Hole in the Middle) it can, and likely will, also turn into a chance to put advantages you always wished you could but ran into an AP or DC cap trying to (I've run both). I'm debating if that's a bad thing. With the inability to reduce the base cost and a real cost cap (80) and my own non-stacking house rules for certain advantages I don't think it is: 80 points is a 16d6 blast and it's a HUGE chunk of even a 400 point budget - though it's one I expect most people will pay for their 'main' power. It might be AP, penetrating, and AoE but each of those things are no more difficult to balance against than a base 16d6, ultimately. In this case I would probably also use it as a pseudo-damage cap - all inherent (paid for) sources combined can't increase it past that point. So strength, hand attack, martial levels, and your buddy throwing an aid can get you there but not over. Honestly damage isn't what I'm worried about - it's the easiest thing to balance in a Hero game. That's why the question is at large the forum: What other nastiness does this open up?

It's a valid point - but in a way I'm *hoping* to see a little bit of that. I *like* seeing advantaged and limited (fixed in OP) powers - a gun with a limit just to be a cheaper gun is understandable - you can use those saved points on body armor or something, but in a superhero or fantasy game I *want* to see that gun with indirect, or line of sight, or triggered, or immune to own power. These are advantages that are cinematic, thematic, and cool but in my experience often not taken because in a DC or active point capped game it directly weakens the main effect of the power - the Blast or RKA - in exchange for situational bonuses. For example - a gun that affects desolid on a supernatural hunter: With an AP cap or DC cap the min-maxer in us screams 'put it in a multipower, or you'll do less damage to the werewolves and zombies. And also the ghost, but at least you can affect him'. One of my intents is for that not to be the case - your 60 real cost ghost busting gun that is evened out by limitations does just as much damage to the vampire lord when he's going to toe with your team as it does to everything else: it just packs a *nasty* surprise for him when he thinks that turning into mist form will save him from your undead hunting fury. It's the same thing with things like trigger - trap man often has to jump through hoops to be relevant if the enemies are tuned towards a DC cap. The enemy team brick, who is meant to take 5 to 20 stun from a full DC blast, wonders 'what was that?' as he walks through the triggered blast that does less than half the damage of the DC cap. That's why I still feel there is a point to having a magic sword - as now you can throw that magic sword for as much damage as you can inflict by swinging it, or swing it effortlessly (no end). At the same time your buddy, Captain Fistpunch, is hitting for just as much damage but doesn't have anything cool going on - but Disarm attacks are met with a laugh and a punch. With his fist. That you failed to disarm. Is that fair to Mystic Blade? Is it fair to Captain Fistpunch?

I'm planning on running a new campaign but I'm planning on making a few changes to creation that I'm not certain will play out like I anticipate. I've made a few sample characters and they seem fine but I'm certainly not a rule guru, so I thought I'd throw them at people who are: Creation variant 1 - "Limitations to zero". I've used this before but only in one shots with pre-generated characters. How it works is that limitations are directly subtracted from advantages before calculating real cost. Active cost uses the full advantaged value, as normal. Limitations can't reduce the base cost - anything that takes you below zero (an OAF rifle with a single level of armor piercing on a killing attack, for example) is discarded. Said rifle, bought as a 4d6 RKA, would have a real cost of 60 and active cost of 75. Nor can you get an 8d6 (6d6?) RKA for 60 real cost by taking -1 of limitatiions with no advantages. Each power is limited to -2 worth of limitations (well, you can take more - you just gain no benefit for it). This limits certain concepts, like gadgeteers or power armor users, from saving points on pretty much any power and attribute they want which makes other origins, like 'lab experiment' and 'mutant' less likely to be built on significantly less 'effective' character points. Not being able to lose your Blast attack (mutant with no limitations) is nice, but paying half for said blast attack with an OAF (even if it means occasionally not being able to use it) is nicer overall - because the points you save went somewhere else, perhaps skills or attributes, that won't be taken away from time to time like a focus. These certain concepts still have an edge with this variant, mind you - advantaged powers - but it's a lesser edge, as many things (like attributes that aren't strength) don't really have persistent advantages to capitalise on this (Besides 'Inherent', which I adjudicate very carefully based on concept and mostly limit to life support.) Difficult to Dispel, I guess. Or ... is it a lesser edge? Especially when combined with rule 2 (which I'll outline in another post later - this was wordier than I planned - but can be summed as using Real Cost instead of Active Cost in power pools). Sample power builds are built on 80 Real cost caps, and I disallow multiple levels on AP, Penetrating, Hardened, Impenetrable, Increased stun multiplier, as well as Does Body. All Stop signs are examined very closely so there's no need to worry about Mega-Area Phantom Zone Bomb Man, who banishes the entire VIPER base with a single grenade throw. What's the worst that can happen with variant 1? Is it worth it? Is a 400 point superhero without limitations more likely to have comparable scores in attributes, skills, talents, perks, and real cost on powers / total number of points on powers to a heavily limited companion? If so, does that swing the bat the other direction? (I don't think so - you don't have to take limitations just because you're wearing power armor, after all). Or does the limited companion still have an edge with more advantages on their powers?

It's truly appalling how fast some (perhaps many) people seem to have accepted the idea of a 'post-truth society' as being 'just the way things are'. It. Is. Not. OK.

Sultans of Swing - Dire Straits

I have never read an indy comic (unless you count webcomics).

In execution, definitely - many, many 80s shows are flat out unwatchable, cartoon or not. What sticks with the nostalgic fans was the *concept* - and the concept ("Two warring factions of giant robots crash on earth and resume their battle - taking on the forms of earth vehicles to blend in") is still solid. There are still days where I wish fabulous powers would be revealed to me when I hold aloft my magic sword and say "By the power of Greyskull".

Pink Floyd - Time

I tried something similar with variable advantage on a blast. It was, as you noted, painful. I then played around with naked advantages for blast with similar results. I ultimately found it more effective (and cheaper, in the case of the naked advantage attempt) to pay for the slots for the most common configurations I wanted to use. I think it's a great suggestion for a 7E, though.

There exists another way (that I personally frown upon as GM but is perfectly legal) that sort of combines everything that's being said: The second multipower has a bunch of Aid powers in it instead of copies of the first pool's power (instead of my first suggestion of a 3 characteristic expensive out of pool Aid). Aid, unless bought as Boost, has a duration of Instant and therefore its effects do not end when you switch slots. So if you spend a few segments 'powering up' to your monster form you end up with much the same effect as stacking two multi-power pools - just... slower. But legal. I frown upon it because if you take the advantages that affect the rate of decay you can take a few seconds before kicking a door in to 'power up' and it can last for far longer than the fight. It's basically a lot of really, really cheap attribute points. Unless you're ambushed every single time you're expecting trouble (which definitely should happen from time to time if your GM allowed you to do this in the first place ... but not every time.) Aid is nuts once you tinker with any of its parameters.

I'm curious as to how often you'd really be using the powers NOT at their full strength - what's the tactical advantage? If the answer is 'hardly ever' and it's mostly a character concept thing then multiform probably is the best bet, as you can build a weaker alternate form pretty cheaply (The Hulk is expensive. Bruce Banner is dirt cheap.)

More powerful in one form does indeed scream 'multiform' but there's another option for people who love screaming power ups: Aid (or Boost). A three characteristic Aid the same point value as the second multipower won't be quite as powerful, true (three characteristic aids are pricey), but it will be pretty close, keeps the character to one sheet (which is nice), and is much cleaner to use. One of my players made a super saiyen homage doing just this - it was a truly massive Aid to most physical characteristics with Extra Time and Self Only on it, with a minor cosmetic transform linked to it for good measure. I'm fond of AId in general for this kind of thing: It's just easier and cleaner to take Aid: Energy blast (extra time, incantations) and boost a basic energy blast you already have than to try and partially advantage/disadvantage said blast into looking like what you want. Obviously, though, this depends very, very heavily on the game being played - if you play in a game with a hard DC cap of 12, for example, then taking aid is basically useless (and so is taking two 30 point pools) - you're best of just running at full power all the time and Pushing when you want to be dramatic (if the GM will let you Push past the DC cap).