Gnome BODY (important!)

Why do you list sub-default values, such as 9 DEX 3 CV, as having positive cost pre-6th but negative cost in 6th? I do not understand the source of your chart's numbers and suspect it to be deeply and severely flawed.

I have no clue how you get a point cost increase of 6 per row in your 6th column. It's clearly not per +1 CV since that costs 7-10 points depending on how you get it, unless there's some obscure cost savings. I don't understand what you're showing with that table or how you derive the results. I ran a similar chart, here's what I get. 5e Cost is the cost of the DEX and enough additional SPD to not have a non-integer SPD. 6e Cost is the cost for the same amount of DEX, SPD, and CV. The LO cost assumes OCV comes from 2 point CSLs, the HI cost uses actual OCV. DEX 5e Cost 6e Cost (LO) 6e Cost (HI) 3 -14 -28 -34 6 -8 -15 -18 9 -2 -2 -2 12 14 21 24 15 20 34 40 18 26 47 56 21 42 70 82 24 48 83 98 27 54 96 114 30 60 109 130 33 76 132 156 36 82 145 172 39 88 158 188 42 104 181 214 45 110 194 230 My math shows that 6E makes it more expensive to maintain the same effects at any level of 5e DEX past 10. Cutting SPD out of the equation by switching 5e to NFC DEX doesn't change this, since +1 CV from 5e DEX NFC is 6 real and +1 CV in 6e is 7-10 real.

If your GM doesn't want your campaign to feature universal 20+ DEX, why is your GM giving NPCs 8+ CV? This isn't a game system problem, it's a campaign guidelines problem.

It's one of those kids who dresses in nothing but black with red and silver accents, except this one is flunking all their spelling tests.

But it would, since that DCV/Stealth only "happened" if it would have turned a hit/detection into a miss/nondetection. Base DCV 8, +2 "invisibility" DCV, attacker OCV 9. If the attacker rolls a 10 or 11, the "invisibility" DCV caused the miss, so he was missed because he was invisible right then and there. Higher roll he dodged normally, lower roll he was hit anyways. That still bloats the number of rolls required. I'm leery of that since my group is really slow already, but if Alcibiades' group is fast enough he thinks it'll work, that's a good solution too.

A less overwhelmingly roll-intensive solution might be to buy it as DCV and skill levels with Stealth. Sometimes he's invisible, making him harder to hit. Sometimes he's invisible, making him harder to spot. That should cover the basics, I think. If his dimensional travels only affect visibility and not other senses, add in a Not Against Those with Targeting Senses Other Than Sight Group limitation.

How do you build your poisons? It's clearly not the way FRED does.

You're also explicitly allowed to just wait for a lower DEX.

But that's meaningless unless the players already know what the statblock of an Alpha, Beta, etc looks like, even if just from experience fighting them.

I know having both Precognition and Retrocognition on the same Clairsentience can make them flipflop in the description every time you edit the power. Something similar might be going on here and causing an order of operations issue.

So there's no super-coder at M$ smart enough to verify the whole OS, no FOSS super-firewall, no roaming super-genius who swoops in and fixes every bug in Chrome in an hour, no metahumans doing penetration tests? But there are evil super-coders, super-programs, super-geniuses, and metahumans? All the superheroes stay off the 'net for some reason? That seems horribly contrived.

Why do you assume that cyber-super-villains are vastly more successful than cyber-super-heroes? Why isn't there a Captain Codebase valiantly thwarting the efforts of Baron Buffer Overflow?

Conan wasn't always a super-badass, he started not being _that_ impressive. Young Conan as a 1st level Barbarian who rolled good stats, I'd buy that. Same for Superman, early Superman can be replicated quite well with a simple brick build. He's strong enough to lift a car, fast enough to outrun a car, can jump well, is tough enough to ignore knives and bullets. That's it. Easy to do on 250.

I may be a bit late here, but shouldn't the real question be which attacks are built with additional OCV Only to Hinder Blocking? The distinction is irrelevant in a Heroic game, but a lot of Superheroic examples are coming up and that's where you have to put a point cost on "bullets are harder to block than arrows".

My experience is that players who struggle with remembering to-hit mechanics are frequently doing so because they're feeling overloaded with information. Giving them another number to keep track of has been counterproductive.

Using the attack roll as the crit roll noticeably increases the power of the construct, actually. E: Assuming the 8- crit, not the 1/2 crit. The 1/2 crit is difficult to assign value to because it depends so strongly on the OCVs and DCVs involved.

Tracking END, Recoveries, skill versus skill rolls, movement, the speed chart. Power construction with adders, advantages, limitations. Though that should be saved for last of the basics, and maybe even saved for after all the basic powers get introduced. I'd argue that Presence Attacks and skill levels are non-critical and should be added later.

Au contraire, it's a PC. Cheap shots aside, I really would love to know how they got shared movement working. It seems to be one of the things that HERO refuses to let you do without stiff penalties, so any method of having jolly old teamwork not hurt CV is something I've been trying to figure for a while.

That still gets you +N maximum for +N/4 cost. Reference my second example, which has the potential to be heavily abused. Shifting the math on Increased Maximum helps the problem, but never fully corrects it. That's not to say Increased Maximum has no place in HERO, because it can be very useful for a number of constucts. It just needs to be handled very carefully. I'd also argue that it's the 0 END and Constant in the first example that make it broken, not DRR. Shaving off DRR just puts a dip after 12, but the power corrects that in a couple phases. With a second dice and standard effect, it'd always restore to full on the user's first phase each turn.

Increased Maximum is very easy to abuse. An egregious example would be Aid Foo 1d6, Constant (+1/2), Delayed Return Rate (+1), 0 END Cost (+1/2), Increased Maximum x4 (+1). This costs 24 real and provides more than 24 AP worth of Foo to an arbitrary number of characters for as long as you want. Even just Aid Foo 2d6, Increased Maximum (+1/4) is potentially highly abusive, since it costs 15 and can add 24 if the user has time to apply it. Not hard to imagine a character keeping himself pumped up between fights, or even keeping his group topped off.

Correct me if the rules are different in 6e or Fantasy HERO, but I remember mounted combat being a great way to screw your CV up. Isn't it rider at -2 OCV always, 1/2 DCV if not spending actions to control mount, and has to make a Riding check for both to attack on the same segment? What did you do to make it so effective?

Reasonable. IIF IPE Blast, then.

"Allocate" and "Benefit from" are distinct. I read that as meaning that a character cannot reassign where the bonus is going without appropriate weapon/power in use, not that they cannot benefit from it without appropriate weapon/power in active use.

Stronger fluff-argument: A character with gun CSLs can apply those CSLs to DCV against ranged attacks. Surely his defense against ranged attacks does not involve blocking, parrying, or otherwise defending himself with a gun. It is clear he can benefit from improved DCV regardless of what he is holding or not holding. Therefore, weapon CSLs cannot be taken to require the weapon be in use to provide DCV.

Remembered a possibly better model. Stretching 1m, Does Not Cross Intervening Space. Cheap and simple, but maybe too cheap for your GM's tastes.