Tholomyes

The system also supports building a 4d6 KA attack, or Buying up PD and ED (and resistant versions of it) to 20 or higher, or becoming virtually unhittable with DCV, or any variety of things, unless the GM disallows it. That's part of what makes HERO system what it is. It provides a great deal of freedom, but requires greater GM vetting of builds. So yes, Magic items exist, and Deadly blow exists and Combat luck exists, but a GM could easily say "No". Whether they phrase it in simulationist terms ("Combat luck represents being able to dodge enough to turn a hit into a graze; while well fitted plate doesn't impede movement that much, it doesn't provide for that type of agility") or in game terms ("This campaign has a good deal of threats that are around 6DCs of damage. Having 11 rPD means your character will just be too hard to damage, so I can't allow this, as is"), it's part of the GM's job (in HERO, specifically, but this is also true in any system, pretty much) to be able to give that "No".

It does have the doubling effect in 6e (though similarly to 4e and 5e, buying characteristics as powers circumvents this), but it's described as an optional rule intended primarily for heroic campaigns, and based on the way it's described in both 6e1 and CC, it's implied that it's not even necessarily suited for all heroic campaigns, nor are the suggested maxima set in stone. It's always felt to me like a relic of older editions that doesn't get removed because a) HERO system attempts a sort of backwards compatibility (or at least the rulebooks seem to imply) that when a new edition comes out, groups can just change over to that new edition with the characters roughly unchanged and the campaign unhalted, and removing NCM would cause weird table issues between the players and GM about whether the old NCM rules still apply, and NCM's existence doesn't really hurt anything, since groups don't need to use it. I personally would probably get rid of it, because I've noticed it to be unintuitive to new players used to D&D (for a variety of reasons, that I won't go into, but suffice it to say there are many things about the D&D dynamics of player, GM, and RAW that I hate, and HERO does way better, and NCM tends to highlight that, either in contrast to D&D or in contrast to the rest of HERO)

Barbary Pirates were active in the western Mediterranean as early as the 9th century, so I'd reckon that might have something to do with it.

Yes. Skeleton Key: Lockpick 17-, IAF (-1/2), for example. As for advantages on Martial maneuvers, I use the rules set out in Hero System Martial arts (I've heard Ultimate Martial Artist has the same rules, in 5e). You don't get to apply advantages or based on the final cost of the maneuver, but based on the basis of that maneuver, and any additional elements. I would probably look askew at Trigger, if it could be done a better way (for example the aforementioned +DCV (-1/4; not while using Dodge, Block or Dive for cover)), but for most cases, adding advantages based on skills or martial maneuvers, the game has plenty of cases where this is laid out as an option

I'll agree that Storm doesn't tend to get hit a lot, but there isn't much textual evidence that she "goes down like a heap" any more than the rest of the X-men. I did a quick flip through of my Trades, up through lifedeath, and when a lot of the time, when she goes down, the rest of the X-men go down just as easily (including tankier characters like Colossus and Wolverine, although wolverine less so, when Byrne started drawing the book, because you can always tell who Byrne's favorite X-man is). Then, besides NND/Mental effects, and Entangle-Psych Lim combos, I found 3 cases out of 90 issues (X-men 121, when she had already exhausted herself with a massive use of her powers [in game terms, END taken as STUN?], 137 where she was taken out early by the Shiar Imperial Guard [while it was a losing battle, the rest weren't taken out as easily, so I'll count it], and 149 [Colossus was knocked into her; as close to direct textual evidence as I could find]) where she went down any easier than the rest of the team. Colossus actually gets more than her, but chalk that up to the Warf effect. As for her "sudden" master hand-to-hand fighting, there was evidence as early as the Dark Phoenix Saga, and it was most notable over a year before losing her powers in 170, where she handily defeated Calysto in knife-fighting, no powers combat. Not exactly like it came out of the blue. As for Experienced superheroes, count me in favor. Perhaps it's that I played enough of D&D to hate the slog of the first few levels before you were actually competent, and perhaps it's that I tend just not to like the same sort of steady XP progression for HERO, but to me, I don't see Champions as a game where you "level up" from Novices to Experienced heroes to High powered heroes to Cosmic heroes. I see it as the game where you pick up a few extra tricks, a few extra skills, and maybe invest a bit in an HQ or team vehicle. The experienced heroes benchmark gives enough points for a decent civilian skillset, superhero skillset and powers, and enough points for some tertiary and flavor-powers and abilities.

Ok, I think I can see the difference of styles more clearly. I tend to play they 4-color-supers variety, where even the most street-level heroes are closer to Spider-man or Green Arrow, than Daredevil or the Question. It fits closer to the Bronze age comics I grew up reading. For me, I've become jaded to death in RPGs and Comics (and, it should follow Comics-based RPGs), due to the prevalence of both, having played with too many vindictive "GM-Vs-Player" style GMs, and having lived through... well, comics past the 80s. I like it when loss doesn't necessarily mean death, and death doesn't necessarily mean loss.

You say "pure GM convenience"; I say "Genre Conventions". In comics, you rarely see the types of glass cannons who are KOed in a punch (even a superhuman punch) or who are stunned after any given hit filling the same narrative role as PCs in an RPG (who are, yes, the focal characters). Maybe your games are different, and everyone is vying to play Jarvis or Alfred, and everyone else moans and grumbles that they're stuck playing Tony Stark or Batman, but don't act like your games are the norm, and mine are somehow aberrant oddities, just because the PCs are all the focal characters of the story, and filling the genre conventions that befit focal characters in a superhero genre.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you pay attention to comics, Glass cannons don't really exist among main characters. It's not that Professor X is a telepath or whatever that makes him not a PC, but his role in the story (and consequently what the authors can do with his character). He's a contact (probably bought at 8-, since he's always faking his death or in space). Take Psylocke (pre body-swap with Kwannon): she's a telepath, with no real defensive abilities, and no telekinesis. But she's a PC. Before even officially becoming an X-man (so no danger room training or anything like that; while she had been Captain Britain for a bit, she wasn't for very long, and she no longer had those powers) she managed to take hits from Sabretooth, noted as probably the most dangerous Marauder during the mutant massacre, before any of the X-men got there to help her and after she and the X-men (well, mostly Wolverine) beat him, she ended up not too much worse for wear. Scratched, Bruised and probably more than a bit tired, but otherwise fine. This is not because she's superhumanly durable or anything, but because she and Professor X have different roles in the story, and her role, like those of PCs, necessitates that type of survivability. In fact, I'd almost argue that in comics, the same type of concessions to playability are in effect, replacing playability with "the ability to keep a character active in a fight"

I'm not saying you can't have those characters. I'm saying (like Ninja-Bear was) that they're probably not going to be all that fun. Moreover, I'd rank your metrics pretty poor on judging glass cannons, I'll reiterate (since you so conveniently <Snip>ed the parts where I talked about the differences between comics, with a sole author, and RPGs with multiple authors and the whole fact that very few comics character are actually baseline normals), Characters are often described as glass cannons, and even in universe may make note of this, but if you pay attention in panels, this isn't really the case. You mention the Hulk, which is a bit of a cop-out, since he's not really a 400-point DC12 character the same way that other characters are (and even when he is in that context, his strength is often inflated due to extra lifting strength plus some informed ability). But instead of the Hulk, let's take Juggernaut as an example. He's more akin to the type of villains a typical Champions hero would be fighting. However plenty of your "glass cannons" have taken a hit from him, and continued fighting. Usually, they're heavily bruised and beaten in the process, and would be toast in a 1-on-1 fight, but they're not out of the fight or even injured more long-term than the end of the issue just from taking a hit from him. As for your list itself: Professor X is not a PC. Cyclops would have reasonably high CON, STUN, CVs and probably Combat Luck (note the number of times he's taken lumps from heavy hitters and not been taken out of the fight). Storm would absolutely​ have high CON, STUN, CVs, Combat Luck, and would be one of the few characters that I wouldn't at all feel wrong about giving incredibly high DEX, Prism is also not a PC (and if your character concept involves being so brittle that you die from blunt impact, then you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to prove your point). The Human Torch would have "plot armor" variety of combat stats, and probably the same with Doc Ock (neither actually gets knocked out easily, even when tangling with decently strong foes, despite the fact that they're not much more physically fit compared to baseline human). The thing I try to note is in actual fights, in the comics, can characters like them take a hit and keep going? Most of the time this is yes. The times that it's not it's usually a character who's more of an NPC or Plot Device than what would be a PC (The other times it's usually silver age Hal Jordan, and I'd certainly recommend never using silver age Hal Jordan as your character concept)

I don't think the primary characteristics, that your example is mostly addressing, are the issues here. Besides DEX inflation, where your point is valid, the other characteristics (besides CON, which I'll get into) function fairly well from the range of normal human to superhuman, depending on other factors that aren't really dependent on GM-Player expectation mismatch. It's the other characteristics where the issues come up. A character who gets KO'd in one punch, for example, is likely not going to be the result of player-GM disconnect, but rather the result of someone sticking to "normal human" benchmarks on CON or STUN, rather than conceding to playability. Character concept or not, there are some aspects perfectly acceptable in other types of fiction, where there's only one author controlling things, that are not going to work when you have multiple authors and a system of resolution mechanics. Call the fact that they're a normal human, but who has nigh-superhuman SPD, or CON or STUN or CVs, an aspect of "plot armor" that is a concession to playability*. Or accept that part of playing a supers game, and the comics Genre that it entails means that your stats will be scaled in the range of the threats you expect. When in the Justice League, Batman can go toe to toe with Justice League level threats. When in his solo books, his threats are much smaller scale, and so his combat stats are similarly not at the same JL-scale. *And, as an aside, these concepts tend to actually be fairly few and far between in comics, and when they are there, their threats are usually scaled to match, or they have a way to counteract this [a good example being Doug Ramsey in New Mutants; as much as was made out of him being useless in combat, there weren't that many times where combat was important until the age of 80s X-crossovers came into full swing, and when it was, he'd merge with Warlock, to form a battlesuit. I'd even say in HERO system, it's likely one player would be playing both Doug and Warlock, with one as a Follower, and merging during combat, not to drag out his own phases too long]. Even characters who have "glass cannon" powersets, like Cyclops, tend to be "peak human" physically, justifying how they don't simply get KOed in one punch. Other Characters, like the Charles Xavier example, tend not to be PCs. I'd disagree on that. As far as the "weight of years", I think the removal of figured characteristics would have been the perfect opportunity to drop DEX to a reasonable level, and it could have been easily done by just making a few conscious choices when writing up things for the book. When talking about the differences between 5e and 6e, they could have added a line in the characteristics paragraph about how characters tend to have lower primary characteristics, with the removal of figured chars, which would clue in players to notice that example DEXes tend to be lower. In the sample characters in 6e1 18 and 6e2 220-227, subtract 10 from their DEX, unless there's a reason for them to have it higher. Eagle-Eye is a skilled martial artist, with lots of agility skills, so maybe an 18-23 is reasonable there, for example, but otherwise, showing that DEX isn't going to be inherently higher than the other Characteristics, by having Heroes where high DEX isn't their Schtick just have moderately above average DEX. Or, in the section in 6e2, describing character archetypes for supers games, the same way it talks about a Brick having high STR, it could talk about a Martial artist, with something like "Most martial artists tend to have high DEX, often as high as 20 or more, [etc]", and the fact that 20 is considered by the game to be "high" dex, should clue players in on the differences in expectations. As for only being "moderately quicker to react than the average person" that difference in SPD is still going to be a pretty big factor. Maybe a skilled agent gets a shot off before the heroes can react, but if the heroes have 1.25-1.5x or so more phases than that agent, then they'll still feel more superheroic than that agent.

I had to dig through my book to figure out the rules on multiple/Combined attack, and to the best of my ability, in being able to parse the rules, It's fairly clear that Multiple Attack is an option here, at the cost of being a full phase, reducing him to half DCV and -2 OCV for whatever attack he makes second (and not even being able to make that second attack if he misses the first one). Combined attack is a bit trickier to parse. I looked through the rules in both 6e2 and CC, and couldn't find a definitive answer, and the APGs didn't seem to have anything either. My gut is that you can't 'double count' STR in a combined attack, much the same way that you can't combined attack twice with the same blast power, for example (which would require a Multiple attack, complete with Full Phase, 1/2 DCV, and associated other penalties), but beyond that, I don't know what the "correct" adjudication would be, by the book. The most logical, in the vein of similar designs in HERO system mechanics would be to treat it like a variable multipower of 25 AP: 5d6 Normal Attack in one slot, +1/2d6 Killing Attack in another, along with a 1/2 HKA that is the dagger's base damage (substituting the Greatsword's damage as required). You'd apply the points to either as you wish, so long as you followed the other rules of Combined attack. However this would solely be my adjudication of an ambiguous rules case, based on my understanding of some core design philosophies that went into HERO. Due to the ambiguities, though, I would not take the perspective of "What, by the rules, prevents it" without taking the perspective of "What, by the rules, allows it" in equal measure.

I would largely agree with that, though to a point. I think it's reasonable to bring down DEXes and the other 5 Primary characteristics, because 10s in all of them already represent "above average" compared to the average population. the DEX inflation is particularly egregious (though not as bad in my games as it seems apparent for others'; for me, 23 is high DEX, not average, where averages are in the 18 range, though compare that to EGO, where the averages are maybe 11-12, and that's still quite an inflation), and CON is an issue as well, based off the nature that it scales with DCs (I've tried working on a CON roll based system for stunning, but I can't seem to find one that works well). However, in terms of CVs, SPD, and the like, I'd actually disagree. CV averages of 7-9 I think work pretty well, because they allow for gradation, where you can have highly skilled enemy agents, in terms of normal human skill level, that are mere mooks when you have superheroes in the picture. Likewise, SPD I think works, both on that gradation sense, as well as how SPD affects the math of the system, in aiding genre conventions. In superhero games, there are more Phases per Recovery, so dealing damage primarily with Normal Damage attacks, and trying to bring down their STUN is a lot more viable, compared to heroic games, which tend to be more lethally oriented, where STUN recovers faster (effectively), so Killing attacks and dealing Body Damage is more effective. I would say, though, that based on my limited experience with 5e, I can't imagine stat inflation has exactly gotten worse in 6e (or, at least, I couldn't imagine how it would), simply because figured characteristics are no longer a thing. I forget the exact math of it, but with figured characteristics often providing a substantial cost savings, as well as gunning for breakpoints, I remember most characters had incredibly high characteristics in 5e, where my experiences with 6e have largely been that DEX is high, CON is often high, but otherwise, if it's not a character's Schtick, the 10-15 range is where a lot of characteristics wind up. Granted, a lot of us were still in the class/level based hyper-optimization mode, and even those of us with more experience with point buy ended up optimizing based on a lack of clear universal guidelines for what characters should be.

Having used trigger in the past, and having had players use it, I don't think trigger (even auto-resetting) is necessarily a problem. I think a lot of the time, it's used incorrectly, when other effects, like Damage Shield, are more appropriate, or if GMs don't count it toward campaign guidelines. For the Attacks of Opportunity example, it can be indeed powerful if the campaign is based around maxing out at, say, 2d6+1 Killing Attacks for routine, repeatable damage, if a character can use AoOs at that same 2d6+1 Killing Damage, but it's a lot less so if they're doing it at 1d6 or 1d6+1. Likewise, it depends heavily on the way the GM adjudicates things: in D&D or pathfinder, AoOs are designed around the understanding that their importance isn't so much in doing damage as providing a disincentive for monsters to rush past the melee fighter, or for the characters to charge past the Big Bad Wizard's bodyguards to try to kill him before he gets too many of his spells up. This assumption is accepted, because AoOs are a thing Everyone can do. You don't have to question as much why the goblins would know that rushing past the fighter is a bad idea. In HERO, AoOs don't exist unless the players build them, so there's not as strong a reason for anyone to know that rushing past this specific fighter is a bad idea. A solution I've found around this, to a degree, is making Attacks of Opportunity a Talent. It does nothing mechanically different, but the fact that it's a talent means there's more of a reason people might suspect AoOs to be a thing to watch out for, and gives them their intended effect. In terms of other cases, GM adjudication is still important. A riposte strike (Trigger off an effective Block) can be incredibly powerful, if the GM is too lenient. However, there are perfectly textual reasons to justify not giving that leniency. For example, I played a Fantasy Hero monk with just that power, and quickly the GM and I realized that it was probably too strong. Rather than bar it outright, we decided on an agreeable solution, where the trigger wouldn't go off from aborting to block, but only when blocking with a held action, based on the justification that if counterattacking is effectively within the same action as a block, it is no longer a defensive action, similarly to the way that maneuvers such as Grappling Block or Defensive Throw can only be aborted to for the Block component, but cannot grab or throw the target after blocking, when aborting. This made it a lot fairer, since I needed to choose in advance whether to try to do my counterattack trick, banking on the assumption that I'd be in a position to block an attack, or whether to use my action on something potentially more certain.

Personally, I'd be happy to just do away with CSLs and have it be handled with either Multipowers, Martial arts, or just basic maneuvers, depending on how much you wanted out of it, and maybe PSLs for things not covered by any of them (for example, bouncing an attack could have a penalty to OCV, rather than requiring skill levels, and PSLs could cover that type of thing). For large swings of OCV/DCV (I'm thinking +/- 3 or more), Variable slot multipowers could be used, for medium swings (+/- 2) Martial arts (though this could run in to issues, not being able to be combined with other martial arts; an alternative could be just adding it as a separate property, like bonus DCs), and for small ones (+/- 1), that could just be a basic maneuver, akin to Spreading an attack. CSLs have always felt to me like a relic of previous editions, kept in because it'd be too much hassle to change. Perhaps they made more sense when figured characteristics were a thing, but nothing about them seems particularly appealing. At the high end, there's not much point in taking them, as opposed to just taking more OCV and DCV, and at the low end, it seems like the game is ignoring its own rules about "If a limitation isn't really a limitation, it's not worth any points), since that's largely what low-point CSLs are: Someone with only 1 attack is probably more likely to take the 2 point CSL than just taking OCV, and while it does limit things (you can't, say, use it to try to disarm, or with improvised weapons or the like), it wouldn't be (effectively) a -1 limitation's worth. With 3-point or 5 point OCVs, it's more negotiable, since the limitation also applies to the DCV portion, but in those cases, usually the amount that they are limited usually doesn't make up for the savings that their effective limitation value would correspond to.

If they bought the whole damage shield construct for the Weapon Damage plus STR, they would add STR, but adding it only to the HKA means they don't (at least not directly). I don't have a copy of 5e handy, so I don't know if the rules are different between it and 6e, but depending on how the power is bought (if the power itself is advantaged, or if it's a naked advantage), STR could be added at a rate proportionally reduced by the advantages (so, for a 15 STR character with a 1d6 HKA (+1/2 Constant, +1/4 Damage Shield), they'd add 3DC to 5DC (15*1.75/5, round down), for 8DC, which corresponds to 1d6+1), though this is subject to GM's approval, and a lot of GMs wouldn't allow it (and I wouldn't necessarily blame them).

One thing I do, in the case of effects that aren't innately obvious, like a grenade, is to use a different cue to whether it's an AoE or not. According to 6e1 125, among other things, one of the things that a character can see for perceivable powers is the target, which in the case of AoEs is a Hex, not a character. Unless the power is Inobvious or Invisible, or the character can't perceive the source of the effect (being Flashed, attacked from behind, etc), if they decide to dodge or dive for cover, I'll give them a hint like "As you're ready to dodge out of the way, you notice [Villain's name] doesn't seem to be aiming at you, but the ground beneath you" so they can dive for cover instead, if they wish. In the case of Inobvious power effects, they're not going to see it automatically, so once they give the "I'm going to Abort to Dodge" I ask them to make a PER roll. If they succeed, they get to dive for cover instead, otherwise they get hit by the AoE and still miss out on their next phase from aborting The first time the villain uses the ability, I might give this the element of surprise, and make them have to roll a PER check to notice (or simply not be able to notice for inobvious or invisible power effects), since they're not going to be as vigilant on the fact that the enemy is using an AoE, but otherwise I give it to them.

I would agree that avoiding too many Limitations is probably ideal, but I don't think Multipowers would be all that problematic, so long as the players don't see how the sausage gets made (so to speak). Just have all slots be fixed slots and all powers be powers that either have no combat utility or are attack powers. All they need to see is that they have the option of some list of attacks. They don't need to know why they have those attacks, in terms of building the character, they just need to know what they can do. Likewise, they don't need to see the Hand to Hand attack limitation. They just have to know that the hammer is a melee attack that does Xd6 damage. If it can be thrown, then they need to know that it can be used in melee or up to a range of Y meters. That's it. My two cents is that if people are sitting down for a game of champions, even as a "let's test out this system" thing, they're likely to have a general idea about Superheroes, even if it's only indirect pop culture knowledge. You don't need direct expies of Thor, Batman, Wolverine, ect, just something that fills the recognizable tropes, which can be done without locking the characters down into a single gender (or more broadly a single characterization; playing Vulcan doesn't need to be the same as playing Thor, and while it's close enough that the tropes can be used as a crutch if need be, there's also more room for roleplaying beyond just playing NotThor or NotBatman)

Honestly, there's not much I would personally want as a "Dream Book". I don't run Pregen adventures. I don't like Setting Books (the Champions setting never clicked with me, and even setting books I like, I use more as inspiration than anything else; Worldbuilding is a big part of the fun). There are already 3 villain books (plus assorted Heroes in other books who can be refluffed in a pinch). There's a fairly comprehensive powers book. So I guess my "Dream Book" would be whatever gets more people into the Hobby and the System in particular. If that's a licensed setting, or a new setting based more on the modern superhero Zeitgeist rather than Silver/Bronze Age Marvel, or an "Adventure Path" type book, or even (though I loathe the though) Champions Basic (as a stepping stone to the more 'advanced' rules) or what have you. I've gotten restless on the same old d20/ect (which I can't stand) and Shadowrun (whose system I like, but whose style and genre I can only take in small doses, if that). Something that would make my group not look at me like I had suggested sitting down for a quick game of diplomacy

The Problem is that if it only does this after killing someone, that's hard if not impossible to do with transform

I haven't dealt with pathfinder's undead in a while, so some particulars might be wrong, but what I would generally do is build it as a Summon. The bestiary has Zombies as 176 points, so based off that, so this summon would be based on that price, (though it's not too difficult to alter based on other undead). Additionally, summon has the difficulty in that the number of summoned creatures is limited to a certain number, though past a certain number, this limitation doesn't matter much, for most practical purposes (especially if the zombies have summon, themselves): Summon 32 268-point zombies, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½), Trigger: Upon killing a person (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates; +1), Slavishly Devoted (+1) (276 APs); Limited Power: Only when this creature kills a person (-1 ½), Limited Power: Only one creature summoned per use (-½) [276 active points; 92 real points] (This is assuming the Zombies created have the similar summon power themselves, thus 92+176 base = 268. Different creatures will have more or less points to their summon)

I believe it would be doable with naked advantages, so you'd buy +1/4 Autofire (2 shots) for Hand-to-Hand attacks of up to 15d6 (19 points) (alternatively you could buy it onto strength, but I can't see a reason why one would be preferrable over the other). In such a case, I believe you would get OCV/DCV mods. In the event you wanted to add more damage (for example with an Offensive Strike) onto said autofire attack it'd add based on the "Adding Damage to attacks with advantages" section (6e2 101; can't find CC if that's more useful, but I'm sure it's in the index), and you would still add whatever benefits (or penalties) to OCV and DCV in that case

I suppose I have to ask, why is this a bad thing? Yes, armor piercing attacks will vary in effectiveness based on the enemy's defenses, but 13 is still larger than 12, and if the HERO design philosophy includes "Effects of equal point value should be roughly equal in effectiveness", then that being only 1 point of superiority seems about right. You could face a foe with hardened defenses, sure, but I wouldn't consider it "not worth it" just because of that. Moreover, not every character should necessarily want armor piercing. Characters with low base DCs, such as speedsters and martial artists, will still very much want it, and for swiss army knife multipower users, I'd say it's definitely worth the 6 or so points, given that the upside is still rather large (using it on a high def villain, without Hardened defenses; based on a cursory glance, at my villains books this doesn't seem terribly uncommon, outside of Master Villains), and the downside is basically standard faire 12d6 blasts. But just like not every character wants or needs Autofire or AOEs or what not, I think it's alright if AP isn't just mathematically superior for nearly every character. Additionally, I don't see the Harden/Armor Piercing arms race as a very elegant solution or, really, the right one (I have my own opinions on those character taxes, namely CON, but that's probably a discussion for another thread, but in short, adding more character taxes isn't a solution I like).

Actually, I do use the "suggested defense parameters" just not the table or prewritten characters: "For many campaigns an average of 2-3 points of defense per DC leads to a good balance that keeps characters from getting Stunned or Knocked Out constantly but still gives the attacker a chance to affect them" 6e2 286. For 12 DC attacks, that's 24-36 defenses, where (shock of shocks) that's exactly my recommended defenses range for campaigns I run (with villains ranges, not counting mooks and master villains, one or two points lower, on average). It works perfectly well (except for armor piercing, and that's a minor, statistical nitpick). People get stunned (the difference being they don't need superhuman constitutions not to be stunned), and people forgo attacks to block and dodge (even the tankiest of characters can go down with concentrated effort, and since they tend to be the most conspicuous, most often, they tend to draw their fair share of concentrated effort) And I have used pregenerated villains in the past, with stats not too dissimilar to the adjustments you named. Combat was fast alright, but not in an enjoyable way. The villain hit hard, then folded like cardboard. So take your condescending tone and shove it. I've done what you claim to be the 'standard expectations' (despite the fact that elsewhere in the book it says otherwise) and they worked poorly.

Perhaps that's the difference in our opinions: I've never really found the published numbers and characters all that suitable. Too often too low defenses and often times weirdly disparate in power level. A lot of the time it seems like a luck of the roll/who has higher DEX situation: if they don't go first or miss an attack they're down for the count, even among villains who should be reasonably combat proficient. The difference is that if an opponent has such low defenses, either something strange is going on, or they're not intended as anything more than fodder. In general, while general power level varies among villains, if they have defenses in the low 20s, that means they'll be taking around 20 damage from the average attack, which is not quite "one-hit wonder" mook levels, but it's close. Whereas 28 defenses is actually about on par with the "as powerful"-level villains I have (not truly "as powerful" since Heroes tend to have defenses and other combat stat a couple points higher), which means that against villains with better than average armor, armor piercing is useful even at +1/2 (assuming it's not hardened, but as I mentioned, I like the dissection of Hardened, partially for this reason. Some villains will have impenetrable defenses, some will have hardened defenses, some will have both, but not every character who takes hardened will be protected from penetrating, Armor piercing, ect, attacks). With the +1/4 cost the only time it's even remotely not the mathematically best option (within reason, excluding enemies with such low defenses, a strong breeze might defeat them) is vs hardened defenses, which isn't enough of a situational detriment in my eyes to make up for it being far superior in 99.9% of other situations

I'm going to try to answer to the best of my ability, but I may need some clarification on some aspects: I'm assuming 6e, because that's what I know best, but if that's not the case, the answers may be different. I'm assuming by 3 DC, in the brass knuckles, you mean 2d6 penetrating (which calculates to 3 DC) and not 3d6 penetrating. I'm assuming, because you're asking how much it costs, that you want to have it be 8d6, all penetrating, not simply add DCs using the DC with advantages rule, and I'm assuming that this is a Heroic (as opposed to superheroic game), where you don't need to know the costs for the brass knuckles part (and/or, you already know the cost for that the brass knuckles portion will be) In the first case, it's simply a naked advantage, which is calculated by determining the difference in cost of the non-advantaged ability and the advantaged ability. In this case it would be applying penetrating to 6 DC of Hand-to-Hand attack (the brass knuckles, as they already have penetrating, do not need to be counted). 6 DC HtH is normally 30 active points (even though some of it was bought through martial arts), so it would be (30*(1+0.5)-30) = 15 points. From there, if you only wanted it penetrating to be used with brass knuckles, you'd apply a focus limitation (Typically OIF: fist-loads of opportunity, which would bring the cost down to 10 points) In the second case, it's largely the same, though there is a fairly common house rule of not being able to exceed the base HKA's DC in added damage, so if that rule is in place, the cost would be for only however many DCs you could add to the attack (generally the greater of 6 and the number of DCs in the fist load). This is ignoring the cost of the fist load (assuming the cost needs to be factored in; additionally, while your wording is a bit vague, it seems like you're implying the brass knuckles are to be used for both the HA and HKA, which is not typically allowed unless the knuckles are bought as a multipower which includes both HA and HKA as slots) In the event that I was wrong in my earlier assumption that you were looking to add penetrating to all 8d6 damage, but instead were looking to simply add damage onto a 3DC penetrating attack, this is how it would add: since penetrating is one of the advantages listed as counting towards DC, you count the added DC based on that: Offensive Strike, STR and Brass Knuckles together are all 9 DC. Penetrating is a +1/2 advantage so 9DC corresponds to 9/(1+0.5)d6 = 6d6. (If you intended to mean a 3d6 attack with penetrating, that would be 5 DCs, corresponding to 11 DCs when added with Offensive strike and STR, which corresponds to 7d6)