LoneWolf

My comment about Hero System not being D&D or Pathfinder was more about the system is very different from those systems and does not make assumption like they do. Those systems operate very differently than Hero System and often people used to them often make assumptions as to how things should be done. Direct conversions are usually more trouble than they are worth and often end up disappointing the player. Things that are consider low powered in other game are often incredibly expensive in Hero, and just as often the reverse is true. It is usually best to just look at the special effect of the power and ignore all the game mechanics of the other system.

Don’t forget that you roll an extra dice to determine KB when using killing damage. That is going to make killing damage less effective in doing KB. If you look at @Sketchpads suggestion it includes double KB. That means on the average the attack will do 2m of KB. Depending on how far you want them knocked back you may need to increase the dice of the blast. If you want to just have the undead fall Change Environment might work. It would mean the undead need to make a DEX roll to remain standing. The book has an example of an ice sheet under change environment as an example. This would just be a different special effect. What it really comes down to is what is the special effect of the power and how do you want it to work. There is no advantage that makes healing do damage, if you want that you have to buy it as a combined power. Hero System is not D&D or Pathfinder.

This can be summed up as “having a higher DEX does not mean you act first; it means you get to choose when you act”.

Healing is not an attack power. Does Knockback only works on attack powers. If you don’t want the attack to do damage, put a limitation on the blast Knockback only. If it did work, you would have to heal the undead to knock them back. With the blast being a separate power, you don't have to knock the people you heal back.

The Hero System does not focus on official RAW like other games do. It has a lot of optional rules and each GM is encouraged to structure their campaign the way they want it. When Steve Long was answering the rules questions he almost always ended his post with something like “The GM can alter this if they choose.” That being said I would never allow a follower to outshine the player or any PC for that matter. Also, the point totals are only a rough guideline on how effective a character is. An experience player with a good understanding of the rules can write up a character on fewer points that is way more powerful than a character on significantly more points. As long as the PCs are the main focus of the game it should be fine.

I have only ever seen this as does not work in intense magnetic fields; the book put that at a -1/4 limitation. That type of field is not going to be generated by a cell phone or even a cell phone tower. What will generate it is going to be power stations or other areas near high voltage equipment. This can often include powers of certain types of characters. Any character that has electricity for a special effect is going to generate an EM field. Many technology-based powers will also generate an EM field. Most power armor is going to trigger this limitation. Electricity is a fairly common special effect. The fact your force field may not offer protection vs an electrical blast or a lightning bolt seems to be a fairly reasonable way to enforce this limitation. Also getting near generators or power stations will limit where a character can go. Another way to make the limitation mean something is that the characters opponents can easily protect their lairs by making sure there is an EM field around it. In a science fiction campaign the characters power will probably have trouble in the engine room of a starship, or near certain types of weapons. A railgun for example is going to create problems for the character near it when it fires. The character will probably still get his defenses from the attack of the railgun unless the character is close to the actual gun. But if he is standing next to the railgun when it fires his powers are not going to work. Everything in the game should have a defined special effect. Look to the special effect of the powers to make this limitation mean something.

I don’t have a problem with characters being hard to hit with most attacks, as long as they can still be challenged. If the character with the sky high DCV has poor defenses to the point where one hit with an average attack for the campaign is likely to take them out of the combat that can usually work. If the character is nearly imposable to hit and can shrug off nearly all attacks that is another story. Also, if the character has to maintain a very defenses strategy to keep from being hit that also offsets some of the problem. The character that has a high DCV due to dodging or applying skill levels reduces his offensive capabilities to balance the character. The speedster who spends half the time dodging attacks works, the one that shows up and automatically disarms and captures all the opponents does not. The first speedster has an effective SPD of half his listed SPD, the second one creates problems. If the group can work the speedster into their tactics he becomes less of a problem. For example, when the tank of group draws the attacks of the opponents to give the speedster the opportunity to act because the opponent has already attacked involves both characters.

There is nothing wrong with a GM telling a player that is a cool concept but it is not going to work in the game I am running. The game is a cooperative effort that is supposed to be fun for everyone. When your concept starts to create problems for the GM and especially for the other players you need to be willing to modify your concept. In fact this is something that a good GM will do to ensure everyone is enjoying the game. I would go so far as to say that it is a responsibility of the GM to ensure that no character ruins the fun for the rest of the group. A good GM will should give some advice on how to tone things down so you can play a character you want. But they should make sure that no one character dominates the game or creates problems.

One of the things to consider is that in the in the comic books a character is often more powerful in their own comic than they are in someone or when they are part of a team. Often they will come up with a reason but as a rule a character is always more powerful in their own stories. A good example of this is in a Dr. Strange comic Dr. Strange beat Wolverine in hand to hand combat. The justification was that Wolverine was possessed by a magic spirit that caused him to fight less efficiently. If I remember correctly Strange did not use his magic on Wolverine because the sprit gave Wolverine protection vs magic. That means when you are basing your character on a concept from the comic books you need to base it off the character as they are in team comic or another character's comic. If you want to play the Flash you need to play the one character in the JLA comic, not the one in Flash.

Just use Extra-Dimensional Movement to a single dimension. The dimension you travel to is inside wardrobe when it is fully grown. Put the limitations OAF (Door to the wardrobe when grown), full turn to activate (Growing the wardrobe and opening the door). The characters carry the wardrobe in shrunken form on a keychain. When they want to get something out, they take it off the keychain and grow it to full size allowing them to enter the dimension. 0 END would also seem to make sense, so that would make it cost 13 points. The dimension is simply an empty room that contains what the characters put in it. By special effect they can only put in something that fits through the doors. They take some larger items apart to allow them to be stored and retrieved, but really large items will be a problem. You could for example put in large tent that can be broken down, but a car would not work. The GM can decide how much space is in there, but I don't think it is going to be worth a limitation.

A good concept is great, but that should not mean your character cannot be effective. A good concept should not hamstring your character in every way. Building in an exploitable weakness into a character is fine but making a character that cannot accomplish what he needs to is not. While players should be able to play the character they want, that character is part of a team and should be able to carry their weight. If your characters concept is that they are totally incompetent at combat maybe that concept should be used for a DNPC instead of a PC. All too often I see people who focus on concept before efficiency fail to actually achieve the concept. When you concept is a charismatic swashbuckler that can charm anyone and your skill with swords consists of WF blades and 2 3 point skill levels that is not a swashbuckler. Having the social skills and talents to talk your way out of trouble is great, but don’t totally neglect combat. Another thing I see is that players focusing on concept often cannot afford everything there concept should have. This is really common with newer players, or those with limited system mastery. Often they waste points on something that can be built more efficiently leaving them too few points to purchase the rest of the abilities their concept includes. Often by rewriting the character more efficiently they can actually get closer to their concept. Building a good character is an art. It requires balancing out what you want vs that which is needed by the game.

Switching to a different system is going to be a lot of work and may annoy a lot of people. A lot of those low crunch systems are despised by people who play Hero System. If I show up for a Fantasy Hero game and end up running 5th Edition D&D I am not going to be happy. I would rather not game at all then play that system. Even if you find a system everyone likes trying to convert a character from Hero System is going to be a lot of work. Look at all the problems people have when trying to convert a character to Hero System. Either the players or the GM is going to have to convert the characters. Having the GM convert characters will often end poorly because the GM may not fully understand the concept the player is using. Even if the GM does understand the concept a lot of people would rather write up their character themselves. If the players are writing up the character, they may not fully understand the system. They may also not have access to all the rules and resources they need. It is also likely to take a decent chunk of time to not only write up the character but learn all the rules of the game that apply to character. Hero System has a lot of optional rules and can simulate anything from a G rated cartoon to a gritty lethal fantasy movie. By changing some of the rules you can create a completely different game without making a single change to the character. It also cuts down on the learning curve of the players. Explaining that instead of using hit locations we are using a d3 for the stun multiple takes about a minute or so to explain. Compare that to explaining something like the combat maneuvers of Pathfinder to the martial artist of the group. I can use the flexibility of the Hero System to make the adventure seem totally different with having to spend huge amounts of time and energy it would require to use a different system.

The way I would handle it would be to treat a dream as a different dimension. This allows the GM to change the rules for the session without making changes to the actual game. I could see a dream using more of the Champions rules instead of the more lethal Fantasy Hero rules. If the normal campaign uses critical hits and hit location switching to a d3 Stun Multiple and no critical hits would make it less dangerous. On the other hand, if you are going for the nightmare type dream using more lethal rules than normal works too. Basically, it can give the players a break from the normal game and allow them to try something different.

In 6th edition they nerfed the stun multiple for KA so the stun is a lot less than it used to be. That means the amount of stun getting through is less on all killing attacks. If AP is a +1/4 advantage your straight killing attack is more efficient in getting stun through until the target has moderate defenses. Up to 8 DEF the 4d6 KA does more stun than the 3d6+1 AP KA. At 10 DEF they are equal, and after that the stun of the AP does slightly more damage than the straight KA. IF AP is a +1/2 advantage the straight KA gets more stun through until 22 DEF. Even after that the amount of extra stun getting through on the AP attack is not that significant. The Penetrating KA is still getting BODY through on every hit. That is something that very few characters can ignore. That alone makes PEN worth more on a killing attack.

I have to disagree with that. If you compare 3 attacks of the same points, one with no advantage, one with AP, and the last with PEN you see that each one actually has a sweet spot. The attack with no advantage does better vs a target with no, or little DEF, the AP does better vs a target with moderate to good defenses, and the PEN does better vs high defenses. On a 60pt power the straight KA does more damage to targets with 4 or less resistant defense, The AP does better on targets to targets with 6 -16 defense, and the PEN does better with anything with 18 or above. On a 30 point attack the straight KA again does better on up to 4 DEF, the AP on up to 8 DEF, and the PEN on above 8. These numbers are based on the current values. If we change the value to make AP more expensive it reduces the dice on the power so the numbers change. On the 60 point power the straight KA is more efficient for targets up to 10 DEF, the AP is more efficient at 12 DEF, and the PEN is more efficient at 14 DEF. On the 30 points the straight KA is more efficient at up to 4 DEF, the AP technically is more efficient at 6, and the PEN at 8 or above. The difference at 6 DEF on the 30 point power is 1.5 points to 1 point, so really it is not. Below is some charts showing the numbers.

With an AP attack you don’t absolutely need hardened to avoid the damage. If I have a character with high defense I can bounce the AP attack. A character with 30 resistant defense that is not hardened will take absolutely no BODY from a 2 1/2D6 AP KA. That same character will take 2 BODY on the average from a 2d6 PEN killing attack. I roll 12 for the BODY the minimum BODY become 4. The only way to avoid the minimum BODY is with impenetrable (or Damage Negation). I could have a character with 300 points of DEF and they still take the minimum damage. To avoid the average damage from the 2 1/2D6 AP KA I only need 18 points of DEF. Your normal defenses are a partial defense against an AP attack. PEN is actually much more efficient at getting damage through high defense especially on lower dice attacks. If it was the same cost as AP (+1/4) it would too effective and would become the default.

One reason is that with an AP attack you can still bounce the damage even without hardened defenses. A PEN attack on the other hand always gets some damage through. A 1d6 AP RKA will still do no BODY 5/6 of the time vs DEF 9. A 1d6 PEN RKA will do at least 1 point of BODY 5/6 of the time vs a DEF 30.

Why do we need to eliminate either of them? There is nothing wrong with having more options, both advantages have their place. The whole point of the Hero System is that you can build any power you want. Some attacks are better built as AP others may work better as PEN. As to the cost difference AP attacks are more useful on higher dice attacks, where PEN works well on low dice attacks. Putting AP on a low dice attack gives you less bang for the buck then PEN as the target with decent DEF can still often bounce the attack. PEN on the other hand becomes less effective at higher dice.

What about breaking apart dirt, is that destroyed? It can also be returned to the original state. In a way nothing is actually destroyed, all damage involves changing the state of things. Changing things back to their original state may be more difficult for some substances, but that does not change the fact it was changed in the first place. In game terms anything that physically exists and something that do not have BODY.

Water can take damage from some attacks. Fire works just fine in destroying water. It turns it into steam, but it still destroys the current form of the water. If you are using Barrier transparent to physical might be something to add.

One reason for using CE is that it can have multiple combat effects. An area filled with water could have multiple effects. Drowning is an obvious one, but being underwater can also give penalties to running and perception rolls. Drowning could also be done as point of NND damage with the defense holding your breath. The real question is what do you want the water to do?

You are making some assumptions that may or may not be true. First is the assumption there are multiple gods competing for worshipers. While that is typically the case in many games that does not have to be the case. The nice thing about Fantasy Hero is that the GM can create a setting exactly the way they want. This includes how deities work. There also may be consequences for failing to worship a deity. Maybe if you don’t have a deity your soul can be claimed by demons when you die. Even if the relationship is transactional the behavior that will be rewarded is the behavior the deity wants to encourage. If the deity wants to encourage people to be charitable to the poor and take care of their others and grants powers to those that do so, it will mean more charity and caring for others. If the cleric loses his powers when he charges someone for healing, he will not charge for healing. The nature of the deity is more important than the nature of the follower. There is no reason you could not run a Fantasy Hero game with a monotheistic setting where there is only one God. Fantasy Hero is actually the best game to do this in. I am not saying this has to be done, but just that it can be done. In such a setting the clerics of the world may be granted power and use it for the betterment of others without charging exorbitant prices.

In a fantasy setting where the powers that be routinely intervene in mortal affairs religions are likely to be very different than they are in the real world. In the real world proving what a god wants or even if they exist is often difficult that does not need to be the case in a fantasy world. If a good god grants healing powers to his clerics and tells them to go heal the sick, they are going to do it. If the deity does not want his clerics charging the poor for healing them they will not charge people for it. If they try doing so the deity is not going to grant them the power to heal. Trying to make a profit off of religion does not work when the deity in question comes down and tells his “followers” to stop doing that. So, while historically religions may charge for services that may not be true in a fantasy world. In some cases it may be, but that depends on the nature of the deity. If a deity wants his followers to be charitable and help others they will.

I think the default goes beyond a game and is actually reflecting the human condition. The default hero in fiction is usually STR based. Some modern fiction the emphasis may be on technology, but for the most part the default hero in almost any story is usually STR based. There are of course exceptions but for the most part heroes are usually depicted as strong. Even characters that have non-strength-based abilities that are more powerful than their strength are still usually physically strong. A perfect example of this would by Harry Dresden. Harry is one of the strongest wizards on the planet but is still physically strong. Even in the beginning of the series he is over 6 feet tall and is in fairly good shape. After he became the winter knight his strength went to low superhuman level. The only main character in that series that was not above average strength is Waldo Butters. Even he got stronger after he became a knight of the cross. Removing figured stats in 6th edition actually removed a lot of the game mechanics favoring primary stats. It did not on the other hand remove our human prejudices that favor strong heroes.

The poor diet and health care is going to result in shorter life span and more issues later in life. During his peak the medieval serf is probably going to be stronger than the man of the 21st century. But he will be old and worn out a lot sooner. The nobility is also going to have to do a lot of things manually so will be even stronger due to better nutrition. He will be able to maintain his peak years far longer than the serf. This is also not taking magic into account. In the Middle Ages disease was a huge problem, but in a fantasy world that may not be the case. Creating a spell to cure disease is not that difficult, nor would creating a charm to ward it off. Historically when disease ran rampant people made a fortune selling amulets and trinkets that were supposed to protect you from getting the disease. In the real world they did not work, but in a fantasy world they might. Life Support immunity to a specific disease cost 1point before you put on any limitations. An amulet (OIF) that gives you immunity to all disease is only 3 points. Depending on the nature of the campaign these could be fairly common to extremely rare. Assuming magic is at least somewhat accessible it is not unreasonable to assume that at least the wealthy have access to this type of items. I brought subject up earlier in the post when I mentioned wizards might be able to purchase magic items the same way warriors purchase weapons and armor. I was talking more about magic wands and defensive items, but there is no reason it has to be limited to those.