Gnome BODY (important!)

I've found the opposite, that systems with metacurrency make it a lot harder to have the down-then-up pattern common to comics. My experience is that players are very prone to blowing through their bennies to avoid the down, then power through the up without them. This defeats the mechanical purpose of the down (providing metacurrency for the up) and the narrative (since they're not losing due to all that metacurrency they're burning). It works a heck of a lot better to establish an understanding with your players of how a plot arc "should" go and get them playing along.

P1: It's really more about awful presentation than it is size. In a good rulebook, reading from front to back will introduce concepts and rules in the order needed to understand and play. Sadly, very few TTRPG rulebooks have good or even decent presentation, instead spreading things out in nonsensical orders. Chargen before rules, for example. P1': In the past I've fit all the rules needed for combat on the front of a sheet of paper, all the rules needed for non-combat on the back, and power writeups on 3x5 cards. P2: Champions doesn't have a setting? Isn't the setting just "the world, but with supers"? I agree that an adventure or two in the book would be nice. P3: I'm not aware of any major product that ships "complete" with pregens, an adventure, a setting, etc. D&D 3.5 didn't. D&D 5 doesn't. What you seem to be getting at is the lack of supplemental support. P4: This is again presentation. It's very easy to fit a description of a power on a 3x5 card or a quarter of a page. And you can put the formal writeup on the back!

I'd say it depends on the degree of control over the location. "Teleport to my flying speedster buddy" is fairly close to "Teleport anywhere" unless the speedster goes down. I wouldn't give that much Limitation. "Teleport to the location on the Earth's surface directly between the Earth and the Sun" is pretty limited since you can't do a thing about where it is other than wait. I'd give that a pretty heavy Limitation. For this case of the sword, I'm reminded of Unreal Tournament's Translocators. It's a teleporter, but it can only teleport you to a plate-sized beacon. So it shoots that beacon. The end result is a pretty dang effective teleportation device.

I wouldn't give much of a Limitation for "Only to teleport to this thing I can trivially move". Take, for example, your own example!

Less math flying around to slow things down, less risk of the modifier not being added or being added twice, fewer obstacles to quick and immediate "Oh, this is how deadly this is".

Well, what you're doing is buying off (part of) the Focus limitation with the SFX of "I can teleport it to myself whenever". Either from XAF to XIF, or maybe just all the way gone. So if the thing you're teleporting is easy to build with points (IE, not a smartphone), build it with points and the appropriate Focus Limitation. Then rebuild it with the new (lack of) Focus Limitation. The difference in cost is the cost of this power.

Honestly, I'd suggest just massively cutting the BODY and DEF of normal people and materials.

Exactly. I felt there needed to be a logical middle-ground between OAF's "This thing in particular" and OIF(oO)'s "Eh, a thing". And as it so happened, there was also a convenient numeric middle-ground! I first thought of it when I was doing up a pair of characters with geokinesis (well, a character and his future-self). The first had "Shoot sharp rock" with OIF: Sharp Rock. The second had "Shoot sharpened rock" with OIF: Rock since he'd learned how to sharpen rocks as he threw them. But the latter was clearly less limited, so I amended the former to be OIF: Rock and Only with Sharp Rocks (-1/4). Then I realized that I'd really just changed how tightly the Focus was defined.

This thread is actually what got me thinking about this, so it's delightfully circular to be seeing somebody else heading down new avenues of thought. Anyways! I think I fumbled my explanation of what I use OOF for. It's a mid-step between OAF and OIF of opportunity. An OAF is a particular item. An HKA OAF might be this sword, Excalibur. An OOF is "Any item of this general type", but the utility is obvious to anyone. An HKA OOF might be the ability to use any melee weapon. Your sword, Bob's mace, that orc's axe, the glowing spear stuck in that tree, etc. Things that a foe trying to deny you access to weapons would think to remove. If you don't bring your own or take a foe's, you likely won't have one. Swords don't grow on (most) trees! An OIF (of opportunity) is "Any item of this (even more) general type", but the utility isn't always obvious. An HKA OIF might be the ability to use mundane objects as weapons. Your scabbard, Bob's holy symbol, that orc's tankard, a branch from that tree, etc. Things that an enemy trying to deny you access to weapons might not think to remove. You're assumed to be able to find something, but it takes actions to "draw" and you can be disarmed. A not-a-focus is something inherent to you, like punching really good. It can't be disarmed, you'll always have access to it. The way I handle this is that an OOF or OIF power (HKA in this case) requires an appropriate object be present. If you buy a sword and a mace (for coin), then of course appropriate objects are present. You brought your own! If your sword and mace get taken away, you can't use your own. But if your enemy brings their sword and you take it, you're in business again! Under my model, a tankard wouldn't qualify under OOF since it's not normally a weapon. It'd be classed under OIF. But that's a digression! If the player had an appropriate power to use, they'd be able to use that (with Club Weapon and/or Pulling a Punch if desired). If they didn't, I'd have the player roll whatever their unarmed attack was. (And wouldn't penalize them for grabbing the tankard even if they had no WF: Tankards.)

No, no, I'm pretty sure the problem is that our good friend with the 200 ton benchpress and 2d6 punch also has powers relating to being made of straw.

That's basically my approach, except I lean heavily on Focus of Opportunity and add "Obvious Opportunity Focus" as a -3/4 Limitation for when a character can use anything in a general category but they're all obviously for that purpose and easier to rid an area of. You want to be good with one particular sword? Buy HKA OAF and a WF in that sword. With any sword? HKA OOF and a WF in Swords. Your HKA now works with any melee weapon. Buy more WFs and the HKA's good for those too! With any reasonably dangerous object? HKA OIF and appropriate WFs. Murder a man with his own tankard! Unarmed? HKA, no Focus limitation. Always dangerous! I also strongly encourage the creation of compound powers. A fighter who has a magic sword might have HKA 1d6+1, HKA +1d6 OOF, and HKA +1d6-1 OAF. So he deals 1d6+1 unarmed or with an improvised weapon, 2d6+1 with any proper melee weapon, or 3d6 with his magic sword.

A bit further down 6E1p140 is "If a character uses an Adjustment Power to increase or improve a VPP, he has to improve both the Pool and the Control Cost at their Character Point cost ratio." which I believe answers your question.

Would you need the lock if you can just remember where the mirror was? Clairsentience doesn't normally require LoS/LoE, just for you to define your sensory point.

Then it's time to tell realism to shut up and put on the spandex!

What this fine fellow said. And more than that, I don't actually want realism. I want verisimilitude. I want that genre-appropriate veneer of realism, but without all the headaches that accompany actually being realistic. Faux-realism, if you will. I don't care what the relationship between volume and jumping height is, I want halflings to jump worse than humans. Yes, I know that cats are much smaller than but easily outjump humans I don't care. Bilbo can't bunnyhop. I don't care if assault rifle shots should be able to penetrate that brick wall we're hiding behind. I've seen enough action movies to know that what should happen is the wall trembling and chips flying as the heroes figure out how to deal with the situation. I don't care what sort of fuel efficiency my spaceship gets or what transfer orbit makes the most sense or how the engine works. I just want to know how much I have to pay for enough space-fuel to get from Earth to Mars. The physics aren't important to the story, we just need a consistent number.

Both approaches are correct and any given group should do what works for them. It's their game, not George Lucas's.

You want the ability to make other people regenerate? That's clearly Regeneration UBO Ask your GM if he'll override the book, and politely explain why you want him to. If you're the GM, just tell the book to shove it since you're the one in charge! Alternatively, you can mimic Regeneration UBO via Aid (BODY), Damage Over Time, Delayed Return Rate, Only Restores to Starting Values.

Actually I think my problem's solvable pretty easily if you've defined a campaign baseline SPD. Have characters buy movement at the normal cost. Multiply their raw movement ratings by campaign baseline SPD to get Velocity Factors. Divide those Velocity Factors by the character's SPD to get their per-Phase movement ratings. Put another way, it's your method but you also divide by baseline SPD to prevent cost inflation. This way everyone pays the same amount (barring rounding) for the same "/Turn and velocity damage.

Basically any quantity of RDEF is going to prevent any BODY from getting through. https://anydice.com/program/19bc0 has the numbers. Notice that a character with 20 PD, 4 of which is RPD, takes barely any BODY from a KA. And that's a pretty low amount of RDEF! You'd have to heavily restrict access to RDEF to make this work.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. HERO needs to develop a social system.

This would dramatically and untenably increase the cost of movement, since most characters we care about are SPD > 2. For example, my Champions game has a SPD 5 average. A simple but respectable 6" Flying Half-Move would go from (6*2*2) 24 real to (6*2*2*5) 120 real.

Shouldn't that be going through the social system?

Why was the character built with 200 tons of lifting but only 2d6 of damage? What's the SFX? That's a deliberate decision that needs explaining!

I've always felt that Presence Attacks should require something imPREssive to even attempt. Color Item walking in the front door and yelling "Freeze!"? Nobody's going to! No PRE Attack opportunity. Bat-Dude crashing through the skylight? Sure, that'll spook the thugs but Laugho isn't impressed. Roll against the thugs only. Superb Man triumphantly hurling the shattered remains of the Prank-Bot at Laugho? That oughta impress him. Roll against all the foes.

This is one of the reasons I feel STR should be decoupled from damage. Lifting has to scale exponentially for comicbookery to be possible on a sane point budget, but if damage scales with lifting then you get the exact problem you describe.