Surrealone

Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels that range penalties have always been generous in Hero. It's not a huge problem, but for those who want more realism your proposed RM changes seem solid.

True, but you don't NEED to buy the Telekinesis with AoE to do multiple things to multiple targets ... if you're using Multiple Attack to simulate that effect. Now, if you want to reduce your TK strength in order to add AoE ... then Multiple Attack with that ... such that you remain within whatever limits are set for the campaign -- by all means. That, however, is likely not the route I'd go for TK and or Entangle (whose SFX is a Telekinetic hold) intended to be used with Multiple Attack.

Agreed. And don't forget DCV suffers, too. You might want to look at the Rapid Attack and Defensive Attack skills if Multiple Attack will be heavily used.

Reminder: Per 6e2 p77, "Unless the GM rules otherwise, characters cannot buy Combat Skill Levels specifically with Multiple Attack." Obviously the GM should probably not be ruling otherwise for his villains unless he's doing the same for players. To avoid the problem, entirely, just buy combat skill levels with the things that'll be used during Multiple Attack ... OR buy OCV and/or DCV taken with the Only When Using Multiple Attack (-1ish, perhaps?) limitation.

I'd use Multiple Attack ... to Grab those who need to be grabbed ... and squeeze some that are already grabbed ... and disarm (i..e grab the gun and take it; not the 'Disarm' maneuver) some who need to be disarmed. i.e. No need to build a power for this, just use an existing maneuver. Yup, it's going to cost a lot of END to do lots of things with TK (unless you bought Reduced END) ... and yes, the more things you do the tougher it'll be to make all of them 'stick' ... especially if you're actually grabbing (and, therefore suffering grab penalties ... instead of using an Entangle whose SFX are a telekinetic grab). But that's how it should be, IMHO.

Probably because of the Leech/Beast example I used from the X-Men movies setting precedent for that sort of SFX for the Drain?

To simulate this, you could also make semi-auto firearms in your world have 2-shot Autofire ... and then allow Multiple Attack with that. i.e. A single 'attack' would be a 2-round Autofire attack, and someone could use Multiple Attack to do multiples of those. This would speed up semi-automatic gunfire compared to punches. Then for burst fire, you do 3-shot Autofire on the guns that have it ... and for full-auto you do 5-shot Autofire on it. I think you see where this is headed. No Netflix here. I'm one of those who activates Netflix when House of Cards is released, binges it across a weekend, and then binges the other things I've missed throughout the year on the remaining weekends of the month ... and then lets Netflix go cold for 11 months. I'll try to remember to check out Wind River when that happens, this year.

My commentary about training was aimed at answering HM's inquiry. As to being able to attack aka pull the trigger more than once per combat action in the game, that is the purpose of the Multiple Attack maneuver in 6e. i.e. Using Multiple Attack, someone can pull the trigger as much as one wants without using Autofire. Doing so suffers a cumulative -2 penalty for each pull after the first one. Thus, if someone wants to pull the trigger 5 times, that's a cumulative -2 ... 4 times after the first pull ... for a -8 to each of the 5 shots taken. PSLs cannot be used to offset the -2 penalty, but per RAW someone can buy +2 OCV, Only When Multiple Attacking (-1) if the GM will allow it, since that's limited OCV rather than a PSL. Multiple Attack is a full phase action to perform the maneuver, and the character performing it is at half DCV while doing it. The Rapid Attack skill will turn the maneuver into a Half Phase action (so that one can half-move then Multiple Attack, or stand up then Multiple Attack, etc.) ... and the Defensive Attack skill will drop the 1/2 DCV penalty into a flat -2 DCV penalty while Multiple Attacking. Regarding how I train -- I personally train for both single shots and multiple shots. The reason for this is that which tactic I use will depend on target proximity to me and how much breathing room (to escape, or aim to offset range) I have. At 3 meters an attacker can likely get to me no matter what I do, so at that distance I train to do a full magazine dump into the target's center mass in a controlled, rapid-fire fashion. With my EDC gun (i.e. Every Day Carry gun) this equates to 6+1 rounds of 9mm dumped into the target (in a pattern of 6" diameter or less) in just under 2.5 seconds. The point of emptying that much lead into a target's center mass at 3 meters is to create massive wounds and blood loss as quickly as possible so that the target has difficulty crossing that 3 meters before bleeding out ... because unlike in Hollywood, shooting someone doesn't make them go flying backward or drop immediately; the blood still flows and the body still does what the brain tells it to do until it gets no more oxygen. At 5 meters I have more breathing room and range mods to overcome to keep grouping tight, so I train to double-tap (which is slower shooting with more aim time than my 3 meter magazine dump) ... and if the attacker continues its advance I will switch to a magazine dump (a la 3 meters). At 7 meters I have even more breathing room and even more range mods to overcome, so I train for yet slower single shots ... knowing that my groupings at this distance suffer when shooting defensively and that I must compensate with even more aim time. Again, if the target advances after one shot, it becomes double-taps at 5m ... and if it crosses the 3m threshold it goes to a rapid fire magazine dump. As you can see, the closer the target gets to me (and easier it becomes to hit), the more rounds I unload ... until the threat abates. Note: Defensive shooting is very different from target shooting. I'm not trying for one ragged hole. Instead, I want acceptable accuracy as quickly as I can muster it, because taking extra seconds to try to get pinpoint accuracy can mean your life. Thus, a balance of speed and accuracy is, IMHO, of paramount importance for defensive shooting. I consider anything under 6" diameter groupings on center mass just fine for defensive purposes ... knowing that with adrenaline flowing and the resulting loss of fine motor skills ... that 6" diameter group will be closer to a 15" diameter group in a life-threatening situation. Also note: Modern 9mm hollow point ammunition has very similar stopping power to that of .40 S&W ... but with lower recoil and noise. Thus, I prefer 9mm to .40 S&W because of faster, more accurate follow-up shots with 9mm. I have trouble concealing .45 cal pistols on me due to my build, so they are not really an option for me.

I happen to be a certified firearms instructor (who has assisted but not led LEO training, even); it's something I do in my spare time, i.e. not a full-time job. With that in mind: The basics of firearms can be taught in minutes (just as a basic punch can be taught in minutes), but proficiency (similar to boxer or martial arts proficiency, when comparing) with firearms is usually a matter of time and rounds put downrange in practice (just as a boxer-in-training will need to spend time with the bag ... or someone learning martial arts will need to put in time on the mat). Competent officers can fire multiple shots while shooting on the move ... but this is SWAT level competency, not Average Joe Cop competency we're talking about. Contrary to people's assumptions, Average Joe Cop competency with firearms is usually lower than that of Armed Enthusiast Gun Guy competency ... since Average Joe Cop tends to practice only before he has to qualify ... and only with department-supplied ammunition ... whereas Armed Enthusiast Gun Guy tends to practice more frequently despite it being on his own dime. Average Joe Cop tends to have more than just basic firearm training, but less training than a SWAT guy. His marksmanship skills are usually fair, at best ... often with a hit rate of between 25% and 30% when it matters (i.e. when under actual fire). A good chunk of his weapon training is safety oriented ... while another good chunk of it deals with weapon retention since criminals are prone to trying to take his gun from him. Hope that sheds some light.

Just keep the total point level of the 6e game down in the 225-275ish level to start ... and cap the amount of resistant defenses permitted to 3 rPD/3rED (no matter the form it takes), except on bricks, for whom you might allow double or triple that rPD/rED. At that level, a single hit from a 2d6 RKA tends to be painful to all but bricks -- and even to them, it can go from a nuisance to life-threatening fairly quickly as they soak multiple shots - depending on how much rPD/rED you allow for them, of course. If you want more hits to be soakable, increase your rPD/rED cap. For context, by the way, a 2d6+1 RKA tends to be a .308 round fired from a FAL or a bolt action rifle. Soft body armor in a carrier with a ceramic plate installed can typically soak 1-2 shots of this, tops, before it loses protectiveness against follow-up shots. If you're going to permit this kind of real armor in your game (which suggests a point total closer to 300 CP and higher rPD/rED caps than mentioned, above) as a potential option for bricks, then you might require the Ablative limitation for both BODY and STUN damage on the armor. It will allow the first few shots to be soaked, but that defense will fall away rapidly with more follow-up hits as each of the STUN totals exceeds the protectiveness of the armor. Another option you have is to use the optional placed shot rules ... and engineer for them with PSL's that reduce placed shot penalties. Placed shots to the head or vitals make firearms VERY lethal...

I could see it.

I agree with the others in that this is one place where continued use of an outdated 5e ruleset is unnecessarily limiting you, as 6e makes this particular problem a non-issue.

The Flash has low-level Regeneration (SFX: accelerated healing), so he tends to recovery BODY quickly. Cinematically, I suspect that most of the time he's simply Stunned ... or suffers Knockout to a level between 0 and -10 STUN, such that he gets to take Recoveries (from being Stunned ... or from unconsciousness) on his usual Phases.

Angelic flight could absolutely defy physics/gravity -- in fact, that's rather the nature of angelic flight (i.e. a magical means by which angels can defy gravity; sort of like dragons have wings but don't actually use them to fly, angels could have the same kind of thing going on, where they really only provide stability or somesuch) ... so that rather squashes your concern about a gravity field, I'd think. Your concern about something being 'so powerful it cannot be drained' was also moot on the Invulnerability-themed Inherent Power Defense example ... because only the Inherent Power Defense can't be drained ... i.e. the Invulnerability-themed character always has a defense to drains -- meaning a big enough drain to mutant powers WILL get past it ... but it will only drain the other mutant powers, not the actual mutant Power Defense that shields them. In fact, that particular character pretty much always takes -some- damage if he's hit with big enough hammers, as that's the very nature of the Invulnerability-themed build. (He's not actually 100% invulnerable, because who wants to play that?!)

Don't be too literal on the Always On portion, because 6e1 p128 states (red emphasis added by me): "Persistent Powers that are Always On (see 6E1 367), or which in the GM’s judgment function in a similar fashion to being Always On, can be made Inherent." Let's use our angel example for this. Our angel buys Extra Limbs (wings) and Flight as 'Inherent'. That doesn't mean the Angel has to literally be flying all the time, since the GM can adjudicate that the Extra Limbs and Flight function in a similar fashion to being Always on. i.e. There's no limitation taken for it, but the wings and their ability to produce flight can't be hidden. That's totally the GM's prerogative, and people will adjudicate it very differently based on their personal biases. If I were the GM, I'd give a limitation for that ... probably (-1/4) ... certainly not (-1/2) ... and only on the Extra Limbs. I'd give no limitation for it on the Flight since it's not bought to 0 END and isn't technically always on ... but it is tied by SFX to the Extra Limbs ... and that's the reason I'd say it functions in similar fashion to being Always On in this particular case. 'Function' is probably the wrong word, but it's the relationship between the Flight and the Extra Limbs that matters -- to me, anyway.

Flight is a great one to work with when answering this question - especially on mutants who take extra limbs to represent wings that allow them to fly (and strike, and do other such things). Here's why: If the winged, flying mutant in question does NOT buy both Extra Limbs and Flight as 'Inherent', then a mutant like Leech who can suppress the powers of other mutants can suppress the Extra Limbs, the Flight, or both ... and the winged, flying mutant can no longer fly due to a lack of winged limbs & flight. This is akin to the X-Men movies when Beast approaches Leech and sees his furry blue hand return to normal human form and colouration -- except the suppression would likely look like a retraction of the wings ... and would result in a loss of the ability to fly. If, however, the winged, flying mutant in question DID buy both the Extra Limbs and Flight as 'Inherent', then Leech's suppress would have no effect. This has nothing to do with 'who our winged, flying mutant' is, as that's a personality question. Instead, this has to do with whether the manifestation of one or more powers is 'natural' for the character ... or not. As an example, if our winged, flying mutant were, instead, a winged, flying angel, I think 'inherent' makes LOTS of sense in the minds of most people, since most people think of angels as winged. The line becomes a lot more blurry and a matter of the player's choice if this is a mutant instead of an angel. Toad's tongue, for example, is probably 'inherent' ... along with his goofy eyes and the increased arc of perception that goes with them -- largely because they're naturally core to how he sees and tastes things. But our winged, flying mutant is less obvious, because his wings aren't tied to senses that should be present -- and so, the character's player should make the call as to whether they should be 'inherent' ... and be prepared to explain why (if they ARE 'inherent') and a GM asks. I have an Invulnerability-themed mutant brick who has 30pts of Power Defense (defined as Immutability) bought within his Unified Power (mutant powers) set ... which is 'inherent', 'hardened', and 'impenetrable' ... because I considered it core to his Invulnerability theme. i.e. It'd be a gaping Achilles heel if someone with a drain/suppress affecting all mutant powers could just drain away his power defense, as it's the one defense that protects all of his other Invulnerability-themed defenses ... and despite being a mutant, he should have some defense against such drains/suppresses if his schtick is being Invulnerable. (That Achilles heel just didn't make logical/thematic sense to me given the character concept, so I addressed it ... and 'inherent' was part of how I did so..)

If the binding has simply pulled away from the first page and everything else is still structurally sound, you can use acid-free linen hinging tape. It's quick, simple and strong. I did this to a volume of 6e2 I got on the cheap because of its binding issue ... about 18 months ago ... and have had no issues with the repair. You can also use glue, which should also be acid-free (ideally neutral pH). I bought some thinking I'd need both tape and glue for that volume of 6e2 I repaired , but the hinging tape proved plenty strong, so the glue went unused. In case it helps: Here is the repair tape I used: https://www.amazon.com/gp/css/summary/edit.html/ref=dp_iou_view_this_order?ie=UTF8&orderID=110-2180671-8978607 Here is the glue I bought, planned to use, but never needed: https://www.amazon.com/Neutral-pH-Liquid-Adhesive-Ounces/dp/B000KNJEYA/ref=sr_1_1?s=office-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1520628367&sr=1-1&keywords=binding+repair+glue

It was the Healing comparisons with which I was struggling ... and I hopefully did a good job of explaining why. And yes, I did note earlier in the thread that you agreed there was, indeed, valid limitation with Always On. As to how a GM values that limitation (-1/2) vs (-1/4) ... that's up to the GM ... and I don't really have a dog in that fight, as GMs will do what GMs do.

Again, the comparison to Healing is inappropriate. This time it's because BODY doesn't have to be taken ... for Absorption to work. i.e. Whether the BODY done by the attack is taken ... or bounces off the defender's defenses ... is completely immaterial to whether the defender can Absorb. Thus, arguments about wanting it on when BODY is taken are simply moot when dealing with Absorption, because you don't need to take BODY to Absorb. This is per 6e1 p165: To use Absorption, a character must be hit by, or otherwise affected by, the type of phenomena he can Absorb (physical or energy). He doesn’t necessarily have to take damage from it, but he has to be hit/affected by it. And this is also per 6e1 p165: Absorption only works against attacks or forces that cause BODY damage (this includes Normal Damage, Killing Damage, AVADs and other attacks with the Does BODY Advantage, and so forth). Might I suggest you avoid thinking of Absorption as comparable to Healing? They really are apples versus oranges. Do you think people only build Absorption powers for restorative purposes, or something? I ask because Absorption might not be going to STUN/BODY; instead one might be Absorbing to STR (guy gets stronger when hit) ... or PRE (because golly he just soaked a pile of dmg) -- meaning the Absorption behavior in such cases isn't repairing anything, at all, in which case trying to think of it like Healing is way off base. (Aid would be closer, but even that's got issues as a fair comparison, since it, too, requires an Attack Action to use and is, thus, Phase-based ... while Absorption does not, and is, thus available for use every Segment, passively, while active.)

I'm happy to point out what I believed (erroneously, it seems) to be obvious per RAW: Absorption has SFX unless bought with IPE (which isn't in the build I put forth) ... Inobvious SFX, but perceivable, detectable, possibly even track-able SFX, nonetheless. Thus, the obvious (per how SFX work under RAW) potential inconveniences entail taking damage that causes Absorption to give someone away when it'd be a problem. i.e. It can ruin use of Acting, Disguise, Stealth, Shadowing, and the like by a character using them if Absorption occurs at a bad time. Perhaps the character is a mutant ... in a world that fears them ... and his/her Absorption being triggered at the wrong time can out him/her. Or perhaps the character's signature ability is his/her Absorption and one of his/her Hunteds is monitoring for signs of that ability (say, in London, where everything in public is on camera) when heroic or vigilante things keep happening to the local crime groups. As another example, say the special effect of the Absorption entails something like sweating profusely (due to heat build-up during Absorption?) ... or shedding a lot of hair as the skin thickens (when absorbing Body directly to Body). In each such case, what you have (based on SFX) is the presence of DNA at the scene where the Absorption took place ... well after the character has left ... DNA that can confirm the hero/vigilante with the Absorption power was there, and also potentially allow him/her to be tracked by tracking scent that is discriminatory (e.g. a common bloodhound or other trained dog ... or even a paranormal with the appropriate ability). Then there are less obvious inconveniences. Chief among these is surgical care ... of someone who absorbs to BODY. In such a case, an incision is made into our hero to perform surgery ... only to have the incision heal up due to Absorption of the BODY damage ... to the character's BODY. This results in a difficult (if not impossible) patient for surgeries.... making third-party, real-world medical care a very real problem (because you cut again, and it heals again) ... unless the rate of intentional damage done (to open the body for surgery ... by doing BODY) outpaces the rate of Absorption ... without doing more damage than the actual surgery is meant to fix. (That's quite a delicate balance -- in a hospital unfamiliar with people who have this problem; most would stop treatment, but for those who tried to outpace, they'd risk doing more harm than good to the character!) Regarding the comparison to Healing: That was a bogus comparison because Healing is an Instant Power which requires an Attack Action. This, alone, precludes it from being rendered Always On ... unless the GM happens to dispense with that bit of RAW (i.e. GM chooses to require no Attack Action for, say, Self-Only Healing), in which case it's on the GM who made that House Rule to figure out a resolution to any/all problems (such as someone trying to make Healing a Constant, Persistent, and Always On Power) that result from his/her House Rule on the matter. Also, because Absorption can now behave as a defense if purchased that way, it absolutely should be able to be Persistent and Always On (just like any other Resistant Defense) if appropriate to the character and SFX. The surgery example, above, becomes an even bigger inconvenience if the Absorption is bought as a defense that's Always On ... because now it's tougher to make the incision! (You might need a cutting laser instead of a scalpel ... and how many hospitals have those around???)

Mr. Long, I was confused by your response to a pair of Linked/Inherent questions in the following thread: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/96761-linked-and-inherent-questions/?tab=comments#comment-2643813 Specifically, you indicated "By definition an Inherent Power has to be Always On" ... and you also stated, "a character may Link a power to an Inherent Power, but if he does so the Inherent Power becomes the same type of power (Persistent, Constant, or Instant) as the power it’s Linked to." Perhaps I am mistaken, but these two statements would seem to conflict with one another -- specifically because: An Inherent Power (by definition) has to be Always On For a Power to be Always On, it must be Persistent ... which would preclude it from being Instant, yes? Also, I wouldn't expect the linking of Power B to Power A, to change the behavior of Power A, yet the second piece of quoted verbiage, above, suggests otherwise. Would you mind clarifying a bit more?

Make it Persistent (+1/4) and take the Always On limitation (-1/2) .... such that this power could be activated at times when it might prove inconvenient ... and that 18 BODY w/ x16 increased maximum Absorption goes to 40 Active and 23 Real points. i.e. Yet cheaper and more efficient... Absorption's also particularly efficient when used with Expanded Effect. Example: ----- Absorption 10 BODY (Physical, Boosts STR, DEX, EGO, PRE, OCV, SPD, REC, and END), Increased Maximum (x2 points) (+1/4), Persistent (+1/4), Expanded Effect (x8 Game Elements) (+3 1/2), Always On (-1/2), Unified Power (-1/4) The above is 50 Active and 28 real points ... to add 40 CP to 8 characteristics (max of 10 per hit that does BODY, halving rule, of course, applies to REC and END). Note that it would have been even more efficient if I had stuck to non-defensive characteristics in order to avoid those that are subject to the halving rule, but I was being lazy...

Umm, knives don't seem like "objects of opportunity" (per this thread's subject/headline)??? i.e. They seem like planned/prepared objects one brings with him, unlike cars, rocks, chunks of asphalt, opponents who you've grabbed, etc.

With your M16 at what age and with what kind of eyesight? (Most people aren't demographically in the prime of their lives with perfect vision.) As for shotguns, ~100m is a reasonable effective range for a slug gun with a rifled barrel, but absolutely ridiculous for my example of birdshot (I was assuming #6 or #8). Likewise, .308 is certainly effective at 1000 yards, but most people fielding .308's seldom take shots beyond 300 yards -- for (as I said in the first line of the post) "accuracy reasons". (i.e. The firearm and the round may be capable of 1000 yard lethality, but most people don't shoot that well ... and most non-military personnel flat-out don't have places readily available to safely practice shots that long.) While your personal statistics may be better than the average shooter's, the numbers I provided are the 'normal' ranges at which people tend to engage. Do some research and you can confirm the numbers as reasonable (for sweeping generalities) on your own with a little effort.

You raise a good point. I say this because I think I stopped reading after the word 'END' in the following ... and I shouldn't have. Here is the relevant portion of the actual text: "Since Block-based Maneuvers don’t require any use of STR, neither Block nor Martial Block require spending any END for STR. " Re-reading it to the end, I stand corrected and, thus, agree with you, HM ... that it does confirm what's been said here.