Gnome BODY (important!)

It's explicitly against target DCV in FRED and 6e2.

Get off the high horse, you gave bad advice and got called on it. Your dislike of Powers has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your proposed solution would not help MechaniCat.

Again I have to ask how does this help? MechaniCat is already at an OCV disadvantage due to houserules, how is another -2 on top of a -1 AF penalty going to help him matter in combat?

For me, it's that GURPS has one building block and a lot of exceptions where HERO has many building blocks but few exceptions. I can look at a HERO character sheet and tell what everything does without looking anything up, since I know the base powers and the advantages and the limitations. It took a while to get there, but now I've "learned HERO". I can't look at a GURPS character sheet and tell what things do without looking them up, because each one-line entry needs a book-and-page lookup to find what the unique text of that ability or flaw is. Unless I memorize every GURPS book, I've never "learned GURPS".

Concept, mainly. When a player makes a pointy-hatted weaver of the arcane, they have this tendency to want to do magic-things instead of bow-things or sword-things.

D&D is a system on a treadmill. Every 'free' +1 is matched by a opposing +1 and the only way to get ahead is to jealously horde those tiny bonuses until they accumulate enough to matter. It's a system where one bad defense roll can mean sitting out the rest of the combat, the rest of the session, having a permanent penalty, or even having to totally recreate your character. Its a system where three to six hoboes wander into a murderous hole in the ground, then emerge only to find another, deadlier hole to risk themselves in. D&D breeds combat monster makers because D&D is a game of combats and monsters. A D&Der who shows up and makes a combat monster isn't doing anything wrong. They're doing exactly what they've been taught to do, and they just haven't realized the game's changed. Related note, but if somebody's building crazy combat monsters, figure out if they actually realize what they've made. Subtraction based defenses and bell-curve accuracy are a distant cry from D&D's linear accuracy and generally flat damage. The realization that 12d6-20 ~= 6d6 doesn't come instantly, and it can take a startlingly long time for somebody to actually grok what 15 DCV means in a world of 6-10 OCV.

But the fact that everyone can do it via their cell phones devalues the power. Possession of the power only matters if the GM fabricates a situation such that it matters, and I can very easily see a GM doing the opposite. This is pure anecdote, but I have seen exactly zero instances of a PC's Focus limitation mattering across years of super-TTRPGing with my current group and that's across three GMs. I can't speak for any plural quantity of people, but it's what I'm saying. If the fighting man gets his 2d6 RKA for free, then the magic user should be able to get his equally-but-differently-limited 2d6 RKA at the exact same price. If he wants fewer limitations, he should be paying to not have them but not to reinvent the RKA. I fully agree that better means costs more. I don't agree that equivalent means costs more.

If we assume that everyone has a smartphone, then everyone's on equal footing. But if Long Wave wants to buy the power to tap into the cell network with his mind, he shouldn't be paying full price for something he'd already have for free. If we assume everyone has access to a 2d6 HKA or RKA from mundane equipment, then everyone's on equal footing. But if Gonedolf wants to buy the power to shoot arrows with his mind, he shouldn't be paying full price for something he'd already have for free So on and so forth. But at the same time, not having the Focus limitation (and Real Weapon, and etc etc) means the power-version is superior to the equipment-version (barring worse limitations on the power version, of course). The solution is to make players only pay the difference. If cell phones are free and worth 12 AP with -1 in Limitations, then a cell phone power should cost 6 fewer points. If 6 DCs of KA with -1 in Limitations can be obtained from equipment for free, then a PC who buys a KA should be paying only to remove those limitations or add DCs.

That sounds to me like they're always broken. Either you get more than you pay for or you no longer have what you paid for. Both are bad.

I don't have access to that book. How do they work, and if you say they're "powerful and CHEAP" doesn't that suggest they need their Limitations rechecked for validity?

How exactly is this character affording six+ 60 AP powers without being crippled in other areas? Why didn't the GM stop this at chargen?

I might be missing something obvious, but how does "roll to hit, if you do they might move" solve MechaniCat's "my OCV with guns is capped too low to hit" problem?

From your description of the game, I have to question if a gunslinging protagonist fits with the GM's vision of the game. I would recommend talking with your GM and seeing if he wants a gunslinger in his game. He may be imagining guns as exclusive to mooks, which is common for super martial arts . If he thinks your gunslinger is a good match for the game as he imagines it, then talk with him about how you can contribute meaningfully in combat despite the OCV cap. If he doesn't want guns to be viable, then you're just going to wind up butting heads and causing problems.

It really isn't MDEF that makes Ego Attack better than standard attacks. 60 AP of Blast against 20 DEF is ~22 damage. 60 AP of Ego Attack against 0 MDEF is ~21 damage. 60 AP of NND Blast is ~21 damage. The damage math fits. The advantage Ego Attack has is that MDCV is generally massively lower than standard DCV, so the mentalist rarely misses.

Not losing your Constant duration powers when you get Stunned/KO'd can be well worth a 1/4th surcharge on your END. Power X (60 AP worth), Costs END only to Activate (1/4), Persistent (1/4) is 90 real. Power X (60 AP worth), Costs END only to Activate (1/4) plus a reserve with 12 END and 3 REC is 80 Real for similar effect. My counter-question here is, given that END is no longer Figured, why would anyone want to buy END not in a reserve if the reserve was cheaper?

I always go Public ID or no ID complication because every time I've seen Secret ID come up in a TTRPG it either results in the GM and one player interacting while everybody else disengages since they're not in the scene or results in a throwaway line about going around the corner before en/demaskulating. Solo scenes don't work in TTRPGs, I'm not going to spotlight hog and neither should others.

To me, this indicates a player who either doesn't understand the game or who isn't thinking critically. He may not understand what SPD 12 means in practice, or may not have thought about it and how it affects the power of his attacks, REC, etc. Last week, my weekly HERO group was making new characters. Standard FRED 200+150s, 60 AP soft-cap, etc. One guy rolled in with a guy with 40 PD, 30 ED, 6 DCs. This was a strange decision but the GM accepted it. Another asked if 45 PD and ED was 'right', then seemed confused when people reacted with surprise and rejection. This latter player knows the game rules. He's the most experienced HERO player behind me and the GM. He just never stopped to ask "well wait, what does this value mean?".

It's more that D&D spells are highly standardized. Most spells have Gestures, most have Incantations, most have Focus OIF (material component pouch), all have some [Continuing] Charges mechanism they share with other spells of the same level. Once you get those out of the way, D&D spells look a lot simpler. Likewise, if you make your Magic Power as a Multipower with Gestures, Incantations, Focus all on the Multipower and don't repeat that verbage in the spell descriptions, it looks much cleaner.

The literal exact same thing happens when a MMORPG player tries D&D, or a D&Der tries Champions, or etc etc. People who learn classification schema use classification schema because it massively decreases the mental load involved. Don't try to fight a war with terminology, you'll lose. Do fight a war with dumbdonkey players who won't read, though.

In a normal game, the challenges and dangers involve Rayzer Blade stabbing you with a laser gun, getting punched by Obligatory Cold Pun's massive ice-clad fists, or having your secrets stolen by Suckerberg's mind-sharing powers. FRED quite wisely proscribes using social skills on PCs for the reasons you mentioned. But to me, "political/intrigue game" suggests that the challenges and dangers should involve cunning courtesans wooing you so they can manipulate you into acting on their behalf (or so they can stab you when you're unarmored), courtly rivals flinging veiled insults to goad you into brash and reckless actions (possibly ones that end in their bodyguards punching you), or a masterful statesman leading you into a trap of words that leads to you accidentally admitting something unpleasant (like your secrets). Put more generally, I would take "political/intrigue game" to mean one where the proscriptions are, by necessity, lifted. You could, I admit, run a game where the PCs are always "on the attack" in social scenes and everything boils down to them initiating the die-rolls and them being cunning and clever and manipulative. But that seems to me like it'd gut the ability of NPCs to be cunning and clever and manipulative and place the PCs in this bizarre state where only certain highly specific lines of social attack as determined by their disads are possible. Overall, to me, "political/intrigue game" requires players to opt into the idea of having less agency. Communicating that fact to prospective players would be critical.

In addition to everything Doc Democracy mentioned, consider the inverse situation of a socially skilled NPC attempting to change the opinion of a PC. Without resolution mechanics, it is dangerously easy to fall into the horrible patterns of "Tray Tor approaches you and proposes a mutually beneficial deal, speaking convincingly of a plan he hatched to -" "I say no, and go hit on the waitress." "But he's very convincing abou-" "My character is unconvinced. I'm gonna go hit on the waitress." "No, your character is convinced and agrees to help!" "No, my character is unconvinced and hitting on the waitress!". For much the same reason as violent combat needs rules to determine who can do and withstand what, social combat needs rules to indicate when someone is fooled, convinced, agitated, or otherwise forced to act against their better interests. Otherwise you just get 'nuh-uh' 'uh-uh' 'nuh-uh' 'uh-uh'.

I feel these are disparate enough that they can't be grouped into a single mechanic. Holy Bolt is basically "Heal friendly" stapled to "Harm undead". I'd have a player build that as Healing Selective (+1/4) Linked (-1/2) to Blast Limited to Undead (-varies by campaign) Linked to preceding (-1/2). I'd also demand they buy Ranged Detect Friendly and Ranged Detect Undead both Limited to Determining Power Effect (-2). Chaos Bomb is too much rolling for one power and I'd veto it. If it were "each use, randomly determine one effect that applies to all in area" I'd say to build it as a Multipower with NCC (-1) on the reserve. Any "dud" slots like the bluing effect should be an activation roll on the reserve instead of being actual slots, with a failed activation roll meaning "harmless but strange effect". Any "reverse effect" slots like a healing effect would be Side Effect and aforementioned activation roll. Touch of Nature sounds like Variable Effect but moreso, so just apply Variable Effect twice and call it a day. Ghost Bolt is Blast Limited to Undead (-varies by campaign) Indirect (+1/2 but - 1/4). I'd demand the aforementioned Detect.

It's the Resistant advantage being applied to existing PD and ED.

Exceeding what cap? You're not stating your position coherently. Please correct this. Do you mean exceeding 20? If I hear a GM say "Alright guys, 100+50 points fantasy heroics, sheets to me by Thursday, characteristics aren't capped at 20" then my first impulse is not to blindly assume that Herocles, Son of Goose, the 35 STR warrior will be accepted with no questions asked. I would have reasonable doubts as to if the GM would be onboard with that. The statement "20 is not a cap" does not imply "there is no cap". The exact same thing applies if the GM had said "Alright guys, 100+50 points fantasy heroics, sheets to me by Thursday, we're using NCM". I would still assume that the GM had limits he would apply even if he didn't have an explicit system of caps. In either case, if I wanted to know "Can I have 35 STR?" my response would not be to say "Oh, NCM, I sure can!", it would be to ask the GM. Because neither GM statement has actually established the upper bounds. So if that's the cap you mean, my answer is no, both are equally unreliable and neither should be taken as assurance that a character with characteristics significantly above 30 will be accepted. If you meant some other cap, then specify the thing you're talking about.