LoneWolf

I am wondering if you really need 4d6 Healing.  On the average 4d6 Healing will heal 14 BODY.  That is a lot of damage.  If you reduce the power to 2d6 healing that is still healing 7 BODY.  Unless this spell is meant to bring people who are down back to full that should be enough.
 
If you only want to knock the undead down Change Environment may be a better way to go. Reducing the healing and using change environment cuts the cost down to a more reasonable level.
 
Here is what I came up with.  2d6 Heal BODY, +1/2  4M selective radius, -1/2 Requires Roll, -1/2 Gestures (both hands), -1/4 Incantations, -1/4 Not vs Undead.  Change Environment -4 DEX roll, +1/4 4m Radius, -1/2 Instant, -1 Only vs Undead, -1/2 Requires Roll, -1/2 Gestures (both hands), -1/4 Incantations, -1/2 Linked to Healing.  That puts the active cost to 45 and the real cost to 15.
 
How it would work would be the character cast the spell and all characters within 4M of the character except undead are healed for 2d6 BODY.  All undead within 4m of the character have to make a DEX roll at -4 or be knocked down.  The penalty to the roll is -4 and it cost 4 END.  Bringing up the healing to 4d6 will increase the active cost to 75 and the real cost to 27 and use 7 END.   
 

I am wondering if you really need 4d6 Healing.  On the average 4d6 Healing will heal 14 BODY.  That is a lot of damage.  If you reduce the power to 2d6 healing that is still healing 7 BODY.  Unless this spell is meant to bring people who are down back to full that should be enough.
 
If you only want to knock the undead down Change Environment may be a better way to go. Reducing the healing and using change environment cuts the cost down to a more reasonable level.
 
Here is what I came up with.  2d6 Heal BODY, +1/2  4M selective radius, -1/2 Requires Roll, -1/2 Gestures (both hands), -1/4 Incantations, -1/4 Not vs Undead.  Change Environment -4 DEX roll, +1/4 4m Radius, -1/2 Instant, -1 Only vs Undead, -1/2 Requires Roll, -1/2 Gestures (both hands), -1/4 Incantations, -1/2 Linked to Healing.  That puts the active cost to 45 and the real cost to 15.
 
How it would work would be the character cast the spell and all characters within 4M of the character except undead are healed for 2d6 BODY.  All undead within 4m of the character have to make a DEX roll at -4 or be knocked down.  The penalty to the roll is -4 and it cost 4 END.  Bringing up the healing to 4d6 will increase the active cost to 75 and the real cost to 27 and use 7 END.   
 

The problem with adding a complication to undead is that would mean that all healing causes them to take KB.  Just because this characters healing is based on something similar to positive energy does not mean all healing has the same special effect.   That type of thing is what I was talking about when I said the Hero System is not D&D or Pathfinder.
 
The way I would build this is to use a compound power with the healing as one power.  For the KB effect use a 4d6 blast (standard effect), +1/2 double KB, +1/4 for 4m Radius, and put a -2 limitation on it only for KB vs undead, plus any other appropriate limitations for a spell.  See if the GM will allow you to use the standard effect on both the blast and KB roll.  If so this will mean each normal sized undead is knocked back 4M.  Since the KB only affects undead you don’t need selective on the area of effect.  No Damage should be worth at least a -1 limitation, and Only vs Undead is probably worth the same.  You could also add ½ or even 0 END without it costing too much.  The healing part on the other hand is probably going to be a lot more expensive.    

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.  

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.  

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”.   

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.

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. 

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.    
 

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.    
 

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.    
 

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.    
 

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. 

Our group has typically focused more on concept than min-max.  At the same time, most players don't like discovering their character is "the weakest link" in game.  Hero presents itself as "build the character you want". This should come with "and your concept will be playable in the game".  When certain concepts have a significant efficiency advantage (or disadvantage), players' ability to play the concept they want is eroded.
 
Better balance does not harm players who build to concept, does it?

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. 

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.  
 

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.  
 

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.  
 

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.   

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.   

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.