Surrealone

My question is more around the relative costs.  If Inherent (which defends 100% against all adjustment powers) is only worth +1/4, if that, then it seems like Difficult to Dispel (which only impacts Suppress and Dispel) is overpriced at +1/4.  We could also question the cost of Difficult to Dispel as compared to limited Damage Reduction.
 
The value of both Inherent and Difficult to Dispel depends on the frequency of adjustment powers (so does Power Defense, for that matter).  Difficult to Dispel was folded into the system from Fantasy Hero, where Dispel and Suppress Magic are pretty common, relative to similar powers in other genres.  They're probably also worth more in that Mutant campaign above  where suppression and drain of mutant powers is common.  But we set "one size fits all" costs, which we have to if there is to be a rulebook at all, which requires setting some baseline assumptions, and mispricing in some situations.
 
That's the crux of the view that Inherent at +1/4 is OK or even overpriced - it just does not come up all that often.  If Power Suppressors were common, with pretty much every game session having them appear, Inherent (and Power Defense, and maybe Difficult to Dispel) would seem like much better deals, and perhaps even too cheap.
 
Water Breathing is a lot less useful if we are in a Desert campaign than a Sailing campaign, and imperative if we are playing in Atlantis.  "Summon Specific Person" is not, in my view, an advantage at all if you Summon a generic guard (who shows up with all the wounds inflicted on him last time, instead of getting a new, hale and hearty, guard each time), but is much more useful with the right "Specific Person".
 
For that matter, try rebuilding Mental Blast from Blast - it (and other mental powers) get a bunch of freebies tossed in.  Blast, AVAD (+1), Uses OMCV vs DMCV (+1/4), IPE (Invisible to 1 sense group, +1/2), Line of Sight range (+1/2) suggests 1d6 should be over 15 AP, but we price it at 10.
 
To some extent, the problem arises because of the increased granularity of the system over several editions.  When every gradation of advantage costs an extra +1/4, they add up rapidly.  Flash Defense suffers from similar bloat.  At 1e, Flash Defense protected all senses for 1 point.  Now, all senses costs what, 4 or 5 points?  Maybe we should have had a limitation for "Sight only" (and :"other sense only", and "these combinations", etc.)  but then we get the reverse where every player limits Flash Defense "not vs smell and taste:".
 
 
I think we'd have to make a huge array of assumptions to get there, as we have to add the ability to defend against other adjustment powers, and offset the loss of ability to be affected by positive adjustment powers (which really isn't limiting for Extra Limbs or Life Support anyway, is it?).  If we were to remove Inherent, perhaps the better replacement would be limited Power Defense (protects only this power) much like limited Defenses which only enhance the defenses of a Focus. Of course, it now costs the same to make Life Support or Desolid Inherent, as the cost does not vary with the cost of the protected power.
 

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 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...

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'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).

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

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).

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).

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

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..)

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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?

Doesn't require trigger. Has a better maximum amount gained mechanic. Cheaper. Ex:
Aid 3d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates; +1) (45 Active Points)
maximum benefit: 18 pts
 
Absorption 18 BODY  (energy), Increased Maximum (x16 points) (+1) (36 Active Points)
maximum benefit: 288 pts
 
The only issue would be the attack would need to do Body.  Stun only attacks wouldn't be absorbed.

Are we all sure that we understood his response the same way?
 
I read it as agreement with everyone on Q3 that the maneuvers cost 1 end if not martial or str based like block and dodge.

I tend to take this perspective, myself.  i.e. One-hit wonders are what I consider glass cannons.

That's the beauty of this system: you CAN build that 35 PD/ED mentalist if you want to.  The ability to soak those hits will, of course, come at the cost of superior mental abilities -- because you elected to put the points into physical and energy defenses instead of mental abilities, but you did that presumably to maintain concept, and that's A-OK!

That's the beauty of this system: you CAN build that 35 PD/ED mentalist if you want to.  The ability to soak those hits will, of course, come at the cost of superior mental abilities -- because you elected to put the points into physical and energy defenses instead of mental abilities, but you did that presumably to maintain concept, and that's A-OK!