Surrealone

I am wrestling with your assumption. Key to this is: "Assuming two equals" .... followed by "one of those equals has a longer reach and a razor sharp weapon" ... means your assumption is invalid and they aren't equals ... since one is armed and has more reach than the other (i.e. hardly equal). Care to give us a scenario where we actually have two equals?

Knife fighting translates just fine to unarmed combat styles that entail grabbing and controlling one's opponent while countering. For example, here's Krav Maga against an overhand slash with a knife: For exampl

Bribery - to obtain specialized parts or materials you could not obtain via 'proper' channels Bureaucratics - to obtain specialized parts or materials via 'proper' channels with minimal hassle/time ... and also to work through the legalities Computer Programming - to allow you to do CAD design work to use with a CNC machine to take billet material and mill it to exact specifications Electronics - if you're in a high-tech genre where weapons might require this on top of Mechanics Inventor - for hopefully obvious reasons KS: BATFE Law - to know what is and is not legal per the BATFE ... and/or how to go about things legally so that you don't end up in taxpayer-funded 25 year hotel stay behind a locked door KS: Ballistics KS: Lenses and Optics KS: Material Science Mechanics - for hopefully obvious reasons PS: Gunsmith - for hopefully obvious reasons Streetwise: Gun Community - go to a gun shop regularly and you, too, will learn who likes what weapons, how well they sell locally, where you can find certain things ... and you'll hear about people selling things prior to consignment or being listed on Gunbroker. You'll also know the local gunsmith and be put ahead in his queue because he'd rather work on things for someone he knows than on things for strangers. You'll even have front-line access to things others don't tend to have access to ... just because you're a regular. (It's a lot like being a wine buying regular for whom cases are held in reserve, except it's weapon-focused.) Two-Weapon Fighting - if you're a pistoleer, this might make sense. Weapon Familiarities - a pile of them, because you've probably been there and done that with most weapon types ... out of sheer curiosity/interest ... and it's the kind of knowledge that helps inform your creative choices on things you make Weaponsmith - for hopefully obvious reasons

I never said it shouldn't. Since you're asking why it shouldn't, perhaps you could paint me a picture of what you think taking Difficult To Dispel and making it a limited version of Inherent would look like in terms of advantage value -- so I can contemplate it?

I can see placement of it under a Difficult To Dispel type categorization. However, I think the proposed +1 cost is entirely too high on top of powers that would also require @0 END and Persistent advantages, as that's +1 3/4 in advantages ... for not much in the way of benefit, at all. (Let's be serious: how often does Inherent actually come into relevant game play?) Now, if you took away the @0 END and Persistent requirements ... then I think +1 begins to make some sense. But only if you did that... and only for powers that would normally require those things. (i.e. I think it should still be cheaper than +1 ... for powers that are natively @0 END and Persistent ... such as Duplication. I mean, seriously, if you have 2 duplicates of the primary character that cannot recombine (to represent identical triplet clones, like Esme from The Gifted)... and you take it as Inherent like you should (since the duplicates shouldn't be able to be drained away) ... +1 would be prohibitively expensive, yet necessary, for the concept. +1/4 seems right for that...

Not quite. 5th Ed. Sweep is only for HTH maneuvers. Multiple Attack is for ANY attack.

How, exactly, is this a tip or a trick ... given that this is the formula given on 6e2 p35's RAW??? Alternative rolling calculation? How do you mean? I'm asking because OCV + 11 - 3d6 Roll = DCV Hit is the calculation given on 6e2 p35 in the section labeled The Basic Attack Roll. i.e. There's nothing alternative about it in 6e; it's the primary calculation.

It would help immensely if you would cite what you mean by 'the old sweep'. Are you talking 4e? 5er? Specifics such as the actual RAW verbiage to which you're referring would be invaluable, here ... since we don't have Telepathy.

I believe the reason Inherent is not a +1 is because it requires the power to cost no END, be Persistent, and be Always On (or function in a similar fashion). This means unless the power is Persistent and costs 0 END by its nature, there's already an implied (+3/4) Advantage cost that Difficult To Dispel doesn't require -- raising the overall cost to (+1) total ... comprised of @0 END for +1/2, Persistent for +1/4, and Inherent for another +1/4.

I believe the advice found at the following URL goes a long way toward making a game smoother and more manageable: http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/HERO5CombatTactics.aspx The most important aspect of it is, of course, for each player to KNOW THE GAME SYSTEM -- which entails not being lazy, and actually reading/learning the rules -- with a special focus on combat maneuvers, use of the speed chart, and the like. If all players know such things, there's less time wasted explaining options.

I think I figured out the issue we're having: You appear to assume that a Power with the Unified Power limitation can only be part of one set/grouping of powers when, in fact, you could have a Unified Power that is part of several such sets/groupings. Here are some obvious examples: Mutant Powers grouping and Invulnerability Powers grouping; Alien Lifeform Abilities grouping and Symbiont Suit Abilities grouping; you get the idea. I, on the other hand, make no such assumption, as I acknowledge that Powers may fall into more than one grouping. This is where I believe the issue with Inherent comes in ... as it's the only way to make a power not subject to adjustment powers (whether harmful or beneficial). Perhaps you'd have understood my intent better if, instead of Unified Power, I had used a Limited Power limitation: Only Inherent Against Broad-Spectrum Drains; Not Inherent to Highly Targeted Drains (such as Drain Power Defense or Drain Invulnerability Powers; -1/4). It's the same limitation value ... and even the exact same meaning/intent as previously noted. However, this more verbose approach completely unravels one's ability to suggest the power isn't limited when, in fact, it is (and always has been).

I'm essentially saying that the only difference between use of an Entangle to telekinetically hold someone in place ... and use of an Entangle to induce the Earth's gravity to hold someone in place ... is the selected special effect. i.e. Mechanically there should be no difference ... except maybe advantages you buy on the powers (IPE on the gravity bit, for example).

That video has less to do with the speed of knife attacks ... and more to do with the speed with which someone can cross distances to use a knife, fist, or other attack on someone who is defending with a firearm. (There's a subtle but important distinction between those things.)

I agree with dsatow -- write the power up as you normally would, with the earth's gravity bit being SFX.

You keep wanting to look at Inherent in a vacuum ... and that's just not the scenario here. The scenario is Inherent and Unified Power when both are applied to the same power, which IS rules-legal so long as Unified Power is still appropriately limiting. (As long as the GM feels that's the case, there's just not a problem ... or a need to build alternate versions of rules ... or even make up any rules.) Now, with that in mind, I'll ask you again -- how would you have built the Power Defense differently? Here are the criteria: It is a mutant power. It is intended not to be drainable to broad-spectrum drains like Drain Mutant Powers/Abilities. It is supposed to be drainable to very targeted drains like Drain Power Defense or Drain Mutant Invulnerability Powers Things that drain/suppress powers are very common in this game ... so the latter is still limiting. If you wouldn't use Inherent for the 2nd bullet of those, then what would you use? And if you wouldn't use Unified Power for the 3rd of those bullets, then what would you use? Let's hear your take on how to construct this concept, with the understanding that it's not your idea of what's limiting that matters, here, but the GM's for the campaign in which this power will be used ... and the GM's already agreed there is, indeed, a limitation worth -1/4. What's your construction look like?

You've said this multiple times -- all the while, discounting the example I provided where there's a Unified Power that's also Inherent ... which is only Inherent in specific circumstance ... while being limited in the situations outside of those circumstances. Care to square that circle -- as to how being limited in some situations ... is somehow not limiting?

No idea as to how it was tested. That said, there are many firearms that are more accurate than the people who wield them. (i.e. Just because the firearm is capable of something doesn't mean the person pulling that firearm's trigger is capable of making the firearm do what it's capable of doing.)

But that's just it -- per the above, there IS a limitation for Unified Power, since it IS affected by more than just Drain Power Defense. (i.e. It's also affected by Drains to Mutant Invulnerability Powers.) Are you saying that unless something is as broad/sweeping as the Mutant Abilities/Powers that was used for the Unified Power limitation, it's worth no points? (If so, I we'll have to agree to disagree.)

Not necessarily. The way it was intended is as follows: The Power Defense, itself, is a mutant ability ... and the Unified Power limitation is taken on all Mutant Powers/Abilities (as is the campaign norm; it's a mutant-centric campaign). If a Drain Mutant Powers/Abilities is thrown at the character, it does nothing to the Power Defense. If a Drain Power Defense ... or a Drain Mutant Invulnerability Powers is thrown at the character, it works as usual (when there would otherwise be no effect due to the Inherent advantage). The point behind this was to ensure there was a defense (since this is an invulnerability-themed brick) to the very broad/general attack against Mutant Powers/Abilities... but to let a very targeted attack (aimed at the actual defense ... or this particular brick's powers) work normally. The way this manifests is that generic anti-mutant nullifier rays, cuffs, etc. don't work on this character ... but if someone tunes/targets them specifically for his abilities, you get a different ending. Note that the effect I was going for is very different from a Susceptibility or Vulnerability, as damage isn't being taken from normally harmless things (a la Susceptibility) and the character isn't taking extra damage from some attacks (a la Vulnerability). The GM had no problem with the concept, above; it fits the game. Since you're advocating blanket mutual exclusivity for Inherent and Unified Power, how would you have built it differently for the game/campaign I just described? You (very generically) explained the thinking that I applied. As you can see from above, the character gets -some- benefit from both Inherent and Unified Power, but the protection from Inherent is not complete/total, and there's still a grouping that can be used to drain off the Power Defense making Unified Power remain relevant (it's just a much more targeted grouping than it otherwise would need to be). The game for which this was developed has all kinds of anti-mutant drains, anti-mutant nullifier cuffs/collars, etc. in it ... so when considering the power one must also consider the game for which it was built, as that context is important. The above might not be acceptable in a vacuum or another game, but is completely appropriate in the one for which it was built. See above for why it was built the way it was. I put the same question to you - how would you have built it differently for the game/campaign in question, given your blanket disallowance?

I own it. It doesn't contain the droids you're looking for.

Perhaps some Lightning Reflexes to help determine who acts first. That's what seems most appropriate. Perhaps formulate a Gun-Fu type maneuver around that concept?

I don't think that's a maneuver; instead I believe that's simply half-moving and using a Strike (the most basic attack maneuver; a HTH attack and a shot from a pistol are both a Strike). There's also Strafe (used to simulate running from point A to point B while shooting on the move between the two points) and Snap Shot (used to duck out from behind cover, fire, and then get back behind cover) ... but I don't think either of those maneuvers are what you had in mind when describing.

Per 6e2 p60, "However, the character’s DCV is halved because he stands still to Brace." Visible lasers are good training tools (easy to when people are jerking the trigger or flinching in anticipation of recoil). Beyond that, they may generate a fear-factor, but as far as I'm concerned all they serve to do is give your position away, especially in smokey or low-light situations. (I also think they reinforce bad aiming habits, since you should be looking at your front sight laid over the target, not simply looking downrange at the target.) IR lasers that are invisible to the naked eye are, of course, a different matter, as their purpose is typically to do target illumination for night-vision-capable optics in low or no light situations. As for red dots and reflex sights -- these are mostly about fast front-sight acquisition. i.e. They don't magically make you more accurate, but they DO let you get the front sight on target faster. Many OEM pistols these days come with slides milled for mini red dots or reflex sights, and some even come with them pre-installed. They have their place, and in Hero I'd consider them worth some kind of OCV bonus. Optics capable of magnification offset range mods nicely. If illuminated, they are likely also worth some kind of OCV bonus, but only in low-light situations (where un-illuminated reticles are hard to see).

IMHO, use of sling tension or a Sig-style brace for added stability/accuracy shouldn't cut DCV, as you're not stuck in place like you are with the Brace maneuver. I'd actually give it +1 OCV if we're talking about a shouldered firearm due to the stability added by both. However, as I think about it more, I agree with only reducing range penalties for non-shouldered sling/Sig brace use. By optics I was referring to reflex sights, red dot sights, scopes, and the like.

You might consider it for those firearms equipped with slings, but only if the character makes it clear the sling is being used for something other than ease of transport ... since properly leveraged sling tension improves stability/accuracy. It's probably a modest +1 OCV at best ... and likely comes at the expense of a half phase to adjust the sling right after transitioning to the weapon. AR-style pistols with a Sig-style brace that's being shouldered probably also deserve a +1 OCV for similar reasons -- maybe giving more if the brace is used properly. Optics, of course, are a different ballgame that I hope you factor for.