Surrealone

This was failing to double-check myself as I posted right before I ran out the door -- and leaving a mistake in place. I apologize for the confusion. That said, my stance is still a solid one because it's the Attack Action that matters. By definition, use of a power that requires an Attack Action is an attack, which means it IS NOT defensive in nature (again, it's an attack; that's offensive, not defensive!) Agreed, which is why I actually answered that very question (and gave my rationale). Key to this is that neither I nor 6e1&2 RAW see something that constitutes an 'Attack Action' as defensive in nature (GM handwaving excepted, of course). Neither does RAW with regard to Dispel which is, of course, why a Held Action is needed for the so-called defensive use of Dispel. Your Barrier example is a good one, as I'd only allow a Barrier to be erected if no Attack Action (and Attack Roll, in this example) were needed for the Barrier (a solid example of which would be englobing oneself). Another such example would be firing up Darkness purchased with the No Range limitation … and its use to deny a mentalist LOS; such use would require no Attack Roll and, thus, it'd be defensive in nature … as opposed to having to roll to Attack a target hex to 'place' the Darkness, which would be an attack and, thus, non-defensive in nature. While that may seem overly strict, it is aligned with RAW and it encourages the construction of powers with the concept of their use (i.e. offensive or defensive) in mind … specifically because it disallows the use of offensive powers defensively during Abort maneuvers (again, per RAW) -- and causes a player to build both offensive and defensive/abortable capabilities when the latter is required.. Thus, a Darkness-based character who wanted to be able to Abort to Darkness would need a Darkness power built that required no Attack Roll in order to do so … rather than any cost handwaving taking place to allow Darkness (which requires an Attack Roll) to be Aborted to despite the Attack on the target hex being required to 'place' the Darkness. I'm just not big on giving out something for nothing … in a game where everything that's beneficial is supposed to have a cost.

Per 6e1 p193: Dispelling Incoming Attacks A character can use Dispel to protect himself from incoming attacks, but he must have a Held Action. Assuming the Dispel applies to the attack, he uses his Held Action to “attack” the incoming attack with his Dispel. He rolls his Dispel dice (he doesn’t have to make an Attack Roll, though this does constitute an Attack Action). He Dispels the attack if the total of the Dispel dice exceeds the Active Points in the attack. The Power Defense of the character making the incoming attack (if any) doesn’t apply to reduce the Dispel effect roll. Thus, to answer the original question: No, you cannot Abort (key word: abort) to Dispel per RAW … and I would not permit it. Key to this is that it requires an attack roll and, thus, is an Attack Action (i.e. not a defensive action). This is why a Held Action is required …

The comedian in me wants to respond with one word: spastically.

Hero gives VERY clear rules for what is possible and allowed … and also clearly defines how many abilities a character can have at any given point level. At the bare minimum, a HERO GM need only set the campaign point level and adhere to RAW (rules as written) while saying 'no' to players when they try to game the system with their builds. However, many GMs find it useful to set active point limits on offensive abilities, defensive abilities, etc … which is as simple as defining the maximum number of active points a player can have in such things at a time. None of this is hard. There's no confusion incurred in such freedom, because like every other RPG of this type, the GM's say is final. Put another way, the system isn't the problem; a player trying to game it … who argues with the GM incessantly … is.

Sure -- if using K11's or K31's! The Schmidt-Rubin K11 (and later, the K31) are Swiss-made, straight-pull bolt action rifles designed by Rudolf Schmidt, a mechanical engineer who understood that two motions (pull back, push forward) instead of 4 motions (lift up, pull back, push forward, push down) would result in a halving of the time to actuate the bolt … thereby nearly doubling the rate of fire with no change in or loss of accuracy. In addition to the straight-pull bolt, these rifles also have amazingly crisp triggers and free-floated barrels. Considering the K11 was first produced in 1911 and was arrived at from improvements on designs dating back to 1889, the K11 was revolutionary in terms of speed and accuracy in bolt-action guns of the day. The K11 easily put Lee Enfields of the same era to shame … without really trying. Aside from the really long takeup on the K11, the crispness of the 100+ year old trigger on my own bone-stock K11 actually puts the non-adjustable triggers of most modern rifles to shame, too, IMHO. The downside was the cost and complexity to manufacture the rifle … which is why this type of action likely isn't common, today. The Swiss, of course, did it both right … and well.

This is spot-on. Actually, the Hero system is a fantastic game for players who get an important part of their RP fun from the discovery and implementation/use of 'just the right combination' of powers and abilities. However, it's a terrible system for someone who wants to do so without consuming and understanding every nuance of the rules … most especially if said someone won't accept the GM's authority, which is final.

I happen to know that the same caveat is in 5er. In case you need it, here's the relevant 5er citation that amounts to the same thing: 5er p218: "Shrinking is intended for characters who can alter their size; a character who's exceptionally small all t he time can simulate that by buying various Powers and Disadvantages with that special effect (see pages 126-27)." Also, since you're going on about what the player stated (despite it being irrelevant due to the same caveat applying in 5e and 6e), on ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 1:39 PM, that same player also stated, "Thank you guys, I think I am going to go with the simple approach of giving the gun a small bonus to the wearers concealment skill roll." Thus, a solution has already been selected and continued discussion on the topic is merely that -- discussion -- which need not be constrained by version since it's totally idle speculation on our parts, now.

Characters that are small all the time are supposed to have things representing their size bought outright rather than with Shrinking; Shrinking is intended for characters who can ALTER their size. (See the second paragraph of 6e1 p283.) Thus, I would expect the same to hold true for objects -- i.e. someone should by the -2 perception, increased KB, etc directly on the blaster (using a compound power and/o appropriate limitations) … unless the blaster is intended to be able to alter its size.

Regarding a minimum cost to be able to apply limitations to differing types of skill levels: as a reminder, the application of limitations to the various types of skill levels is a GM call in 6e -- whether we're talking about Combat Skill Levels or plain old Skill Levels (the latter of which would be relevant for a bonus to the Concealment Roll). Per 6e1 p71: COMBAT SKILL LEVELS WITH LIMITATIONS With the GM’s permission, characters can put Limitations on CSLs (for example, to build equipment, like a laser sight for a gun). The GM may restrict which types of CSLs a character can Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations. Unless the GM rules otherwise, CSLs with Limitations can only increase the user’s OCV, not DCV or damage. Per 6e1 p88: With the GM’s permission, characters can put Limitations on Skill Levels. The GM may restrict which types of Skill Levels a character can Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point Skill Levels can have Limitations.

Disguising a weapon is very, very different from simply concealing it on one's person … and it's the latter situation where I felt the IAF approach is hackneyed and handwaving. (The former makes complete sense … and RAW's examples make it clear as to the intent.) Based on RAW and those examples, I absolutely agree that a disguised weapon (i.e. a weapon caused to look like something other than what it is) would qualify as an IAF. RAW's examples which you included in your citation (thank you!) provide perfect clarification as to what is meant by "disguised or concealed weapons." Notice in those examples the gun looks like a cane (cane gun) … and the blaster looks like a glove (because it's concealed inside one). Both of those are clearly examples of a weapon disguised to look like something else, with concealment (inside the glove … or inside the cane) being used to achieve the disguise. Concealment for the purpose of disguise logic will only go so far, as I think we can all agree that concealing a handgun inside a glove can disguise it as a glove … but concealing a handgun inside of a coat pocket or a purse doesn't disguise it as a coat or a purse (instead it merely conceals the handgun from view). So far, this thread hasn't been about disguising a weapon; it's been about a weapon being "hidden on a person carrying it" (to use the original poster's exact words) -- hence my stance on the IAF. There is, of course, some novelty in the disguise (to achieve concealment) approach you've mentioned; it's fairly out of the box thinking (which, interestingly, also happens to be illegal in a number of states in the real-world USA). If the objective is to disguise a weapon rather than merely conceal it, you've certainly proposed a valid approach for such disguise.

Because when you pull and fire a gun, it's hardly 'inobvious'... and an IAF remains inobvious even during use. A great parallel example would be a cell-phone vs. Bluetooth-enabled Airpods. The cell phone would be an OAF (much like a gun) because it's inobvious when vibrating in your pocket but quite obvious and quite accessible when it's in hand and being used …. while the Bluetooth-enabled Airpods would be an IAF because they remain inobvious throughout use (unlike a gun). More important, I think, is the fact that concealing a weapon on one's body is absolutely a skill … and is an example of why we have Concealment in the book. Why is it not as simple as just using what's in the book to properly simulate what actually happens when someone, you know, conceals (hint: skill roll) a gun on his/her person … rather than taking some hackneyed approach with an IAF that is actually obvious while being used … and handwaving when you need not do so?

Massey has a solid idea with regard to certain weapons having a bonus to Concealment. Using the belt buckle gun example, we have a gun/holster designed intentionally not to stand out on certain body types … so I would agree that combo has a bonus to Concealment rolls. Another example of this would be intentionally-miniaturized firearms like a Derringer or one of the plethora of light-weight, polymer-framed .380 ACP pocket pistols spawned after the debut of the Kel-Tec P-3AT … all of which are meant to be easily shoved in a pocket, purse, waistband, etc. and have them easily disappear.

Don't try to build it into the gun. Instead, have the character make a Concealment roll when placing the weapon on his/her body and use the result of that roll (in contested fashion, if desired) to determine how concealed the weapon is. I suggest this approach because strapping a holdout piece to one's ankle, concealing a firearm in an IWB holster, and slinging an Uzi or shotgun under one's coat -- and moving about with such things equipped … all have one thing in common: a degree of skill when it comes to clothing choices, precise position on the body, and movement with the concealed weapon in place. You might also consider a complementary PS: Concealed Carry. I suggest this because practically every person who carries concealed … has a bin of holsters s/he has tried in various combinations with clothing until he/she has arrived at what works for his/her body type, clothing preferences, and movement tendencies. I also suggest this because someone who is carrying a firearm for the very first time tends to move much less naturally than someone who has been doing it for years. Movement characteristics in conjunction with clothing and body type are important because certain motions can cause a concealed firearm to 'print' (i.e. have the outline of it shown on a cover garment). Example -- an ankle holster with a small firearm may print if someone is wearing loose slacks and the wind blows hard directly against the side of the leg where the firearm is located; someone who is accustomed to carrying concealed will almost instinctively move to positionthe ankle holster and firearm in the lee of the leg relative to the wind, thereby avoiding such printing. Example: an IWB (inside waistband) holster with a firearm located at the 4 o'clock position beneath a tucked-in shirt is prone to printing on that shirt when someone stretches to reach something high, specifically due to the tension applied to the otherwise loose shirt being applied directly over the firearm; someone who is accustomed to carrying concealed will naturally tend to use the left arm/hand to perform that reach, thereby tightening/tensioning the material on the 8 o'clock position of the body rather than the 4 o'clock side A Concealment roll each time a weapon is strapped on also makes sense … because something as slight as the difference between the 3:30 and 4 o'clock positions can make a substantial difference in print levels or noticeability. Colour choices also matter, and as another example, consider that open carry of a black firearm in a black/grey custom leather holster … while wearing grey shorts and a black shirt … with black socks and black/grey shoes … can yield an openly-carried (i.e. in plain sight) firearm that next to no one notices simply because it blends into the colour palette of the clothing being worn with a rudimentary camouflage effect. This is basically what belt buckle firearms rely on -- a very limited form of camouflage that causes people to overlook them. In reality that form of camouflage isn't something built into the belt buckle gun. Instead, it's something specific to the relationship of the gun, the belt buckle holster on which it's carried, the clothing choices of the person wearing it to 'gel' with that belt and belt buckle, the body type of someone able to wear a belt buckle that large, and the human tendency to overlook certain things yet perk up and pay attention to others while people busily go about their lives. Concealment is likely the skill that best suits someone's ability to identify and effectively leverage that relationship.

Don't forget that the halving rule (6e1 p141 under 'Defense Powers' in the left-hand column) applies. So sure, it's 10 CP per die, but you need to half what comes up on the die when healing BODY and STUN because of said halving rule. I mention this because when you consider the halving rule, healing is more like 20 CP per full die of it (since you're going to have to buy 2d6 in order to get 1d6's worth of actual output after the halving rule is considered). Talk about totally broken costing; apparently Healing is so unheroic that Hero dis-incents its use (in order to favour defenses) with absurd costing. Don't forget to plan your framework appropriately, as well -- since it'll need to be bigger to account for more dice of healing.

I've seen -0 a number of times and, in fact, have it on a few of my own sheets. I also regularly see charges taken at a smaller number than the maximum charge total at a given limitation value -- specifically to properly represent magazine capacities on real-world firearms. That said, I'm a bit of an anomaly, I suppose … because the -0 is a pretty rare bird unless we're talking things Steven Long built out in his Gun Fu book. As for the maturity comment, I think you took my implication differently than I intended. I consider it immature to stack as many limitations as one believes possible to reduce cost, but I consider it normal/mature to have a laundry list of limitations if that is what is required to properly define the limits of a power. (Intent is the differentiating factor, here.)

It's been a long time since I've seen that -- largely because a) most of the people I've gamed with are mature enough not to take a value for a limitation that doesn't limit them and b) most of the GM's I've gamed with are seasoned enough to spot that sort of thing a mile away and stomp it out on those rare occasions where it comes up. (Note: Both a) and b) result in no need to pay back the points because no cost break was received in the first place.)

I should have been more specific and said 'in 6e RAW' rather than just 'in 6e'. Please forgive the oversight if for some reason my post suggested in some way that I was looking for a house-ruled write-up.

I concur with Lucius.

I play both heroic and super-heroic games. When gaming at the heroic level, equipment tends to matter and guns are quite lethal. However, even at the super-heroic level, it is largely the advantages and limitations that define a power. Let's boil it down to brass tacks. If you do this for limitations then it should also be done for advantages -- because the same logic applies to both, and the approach should be consistent for both. And since you're all about super-heroic play, just try making a Mental Entangle in 6e without a list of advantages/limitations if you have any doubts on this topic. And note: that's just to make the basic Mental Entangle -- onto which someone then might need to lump additional advantages (IPE, for example) and limitations (charges, only works when X, etc.) to take that Mental Entangle and make it fit properly into the overall character concept. In fact, Mental Entangles are great examples of why having only 1 or 2 advantages/limitations (or even a blanket cap on max number or value of advantages/limitations) just doesn't make much sense to me : with only 1-2 of either, the Entangle power could no longer be properly defined into a Mental Entangle AND something with advantages/limitations that gel it into the character's concept... P.S. Sure, I get that this topic started ONLY about limitations, but again, the logic applied to dumbing down limitation lists also applies to advantage lists, and I firmly believe that if you run with dumbing things down, you need to do it to not only what affects the divisor of a power's costs, but to that which affects the multiplier of a power's costs, too -- just to be consistent in how you dumb down the math.

Incorrect. Modern cartridges are made to fit specific caliber modern weapons … and will fire under water and in space. That's just part of how they are. Now if you produced some kind of self-contained cartridge for a muzzle loader (which normally doesn't take cartridges ... and will NOT normally fire under water or in space when loose powder, a bullet, and a primer are used) … THAT would be a naked advantage allowing a weapon that never used to fire under water or in space … to do so.

No, you can't really get by with just one limitation while maintaining the level of granularity Hero offers. As an example of why, let's use your example. Would your Real World limitation preclude a common firearm from firing in space? If your answer is 'yes' then I have to call BS, because modern ammunition contains oxidizers that allow it to fire under water, in space, etc. And there, sir, exists an example of the pitfalls of vague, non-granular limitations (i.e. one person thinks it means one thing, while a more or differently-informed person thinks it means another)... Thus, if you want that 'Does Not Work In Space' limitation, you should receive it … and then we're back to the GM having to rule as to whether that's worth any points (since, you know, his game might not involve going into space). Again, the GM is the existing solution to whether limitations are appropriate to the campaign setting … based on whether they will or won't come into play (and, if so, how often). And there's nothing wrong with granular lists of advantages or limitations if they serve to define a power properly. After all, the entire point of eliminating some powers (from previous versions ... like say, Force Wall) and then using advantages/limitations to achieve the same result with a more generic power (a la Barrier) … was to simplify the toolkit without any loss of granularity. What you propose … is to chuck a large amount of granularity out the window. A GM is certainly welcome to do that, but a lot of folks play this game precisely because it offers a level of granularity not seen in most RPGs.

Neil, He first asked what the difference is between .38 and .380 caliber. To answer that properly, bullet length and shape are completely irrelevant to a correct technical response, since caliber is, by definition, the internal diameter of the gun barrel (aka the diameter of the projectile shot by the gun). Technically, this means that the difference between .38 and .380 caliber is only notation (and nothing more, since there's no other difference because they represent the same diameter). He then asked what differentiates the two as ammunition -- which I take to mean "What is the difference between .38 special and .380 ACP cartridges?" That, sir, is where I believe your answers come in. I figured I'd pipe up and clarify … since the first question appeared to have gone unaddressed.

This proposal feels like a solution in search of a problem. I say that because given the presence of a GM who has final adjudication rights regarding his/her game, there just isn't a problem to be solved. Now if we lacked GMs, then we'd be missing a solution to a number of imperfections in the game system, but as it stands, today, the GM -is- the solution to certain issues. Because it's not broken, I don't think there's anything to fix/address on this front...

Take an ugly, stamped, unreliable Ingram MAX-11 9mm, replace the bolt, stock, and upper with appropriate Lage Manufacturing parts, and voila, you have an inexpensive, highly-reliable, accurate, and modern 9mm SMG that easily fits in a briefcase … for a price far lower than transferable 9mm Uzis, MP5's, and similar form-factor SMG's.

This appears to be Desolidification with the Cannot Pass Through Solid Objects (-½) limitation and the Does Not Protect Against Damage (-1) limitation. Given that there's already a well-established way to build the effect of the proposed new power, I see the proposed new power as wholly un-necessary. That said, I think the Barrier Chart you've provided is an excellent additional to optional rules to help govern what someone (who builds out the aforementioned Desolidification w/ its limitations) can move through -- for GMs who desire a pre-baked chart of such things.