Gnome BODY (important!)

HEY!

A silence field works, but is extremely blatant. 
What sort of social situation prevents you from telling the blind man about the thing he can't see?  In an undercover situation you'd want clandestine communication channels anyways, wouldn't you? 
Why can't Man-Bat decide who to attack on his own, or delay to see who Teamo shoots/points at? 
Why does the color of the blast matter?  Doesn't he want to dodge all the energy blasts? 
Doesn't Man-Bat have work and family commitments too?  Wouldn't a blind person have accommodation made by his workplace and set up in his home?  Is Man-Bat expected to go on solo adventures while everyone else at the table twiddles their thumbs and waits to be permitted to play?  (Though, bluebooking solo adventures would be a great way to get the blindness to matter.)
In my experience, the majority of a character's 150 points of Disadvantages don't come up.  Should every character be forced to force their disads into the story or lose points? 

Then it sounds to me like you've got a good system that should serve you well! 

Fantasy Hero 5th edition, example magic systems section.  11 out of 12 systems presented have Gestures and/or Incantations.  The last does not have the SFX of gestures or incantations so cannot be the magic system used by the OP who mentions gestures and incantations.  The baseline is clearly for Gestures and/or Incantations. All evidence supports OP using a magic system where spells have Gestures or Incantations. 
There's one bit of my evidence, still haven't seen any of yours. 
 
You don't get to say you're bowing out unless you actually stop arguing.  Claiming to leave an argument is not a get-last-word-in-uncontested free card. 
 
Do you have a single iota of evidence that Gestures and Incantations aren't in use?  Remember, we're not discussing the vague abstract of all possible magic systems, we're discussing OP's magic system.  And OP mentioned "gestures or incantations".
 
In this thread, this is the only important part of your post. 

And I don't feel that deliberately refusing to engage with the topic the OP wants to discuss when they have a question on the grounds that there might be houserules or nonstandard methodologies when the OP suggests standard methodologies and mentions no houserules is constructive.  In fact, I think it's extremely rude to the OP and has no place in a thread where they're looking for rules answers. 
 
Do you have a single iota of evidence that such is the case in OP's game, given their explicit mention of "gestures or incantations" as a trigger for an attack? 
 
You might want to reread some Fantasy Hero books, because Gestures and/or Incantations is in fact the base condition. 

I think the problem is more the interaction between Mental Paralysis and Hit Locations than Mental Paralysis being blank-room OP. 
Unless it's an extremely powerful Mental Paralysis, it'll only be 2d6, 3d6 maybe.  A character with 15-20 EGO should blow out of that pretty easily, and is explicitly allowed to push their roll which gives a decent shot at doing so using casual EGO. 

VPPs must have a tightly defined SFX.  No vaguely defined "cosmic power VPP (does anything)" or "magic VPP (does anything)". 
You, the player, cannot have the Extra Time Limitation.  When your Phase comes up, you either have the thing you want to VPP fully built or you're not VPPing that thing right now. 
 
These were in response to the guy who took a Cosmic  "magic" VPP as his character's only mode of combat and would take three minutes just to figure out that Fireball is RKA 2d6 AoE.  It was horrible. 

VPPs must have a tightly defined SFX.  No vaguely defined "cosmic power VPP (does anything)" or "magic VPP (does anything)". 
You, the player, cannot have the Extra Time Limitation.  When your Phase comes up, you either have the thing you want to VPP fully built or you're not VPPing that thing right now. 
 
These were in response to the guy who took a Cosmic  "magic" VPP as his character's only mode of combat and would take three minutes just to figure out that Fireball is RKA 2d6 AoE.  It was horrible. 

I'd wonder why you're using Transform here.  You want to turn water into ice for a reason, right?  To make a barrier, or to walk across something, hit somebody with sharp ice objects, whatever. 
So build that power, with "Turning water into ice and" as the SFX. 
 
Also everything dsatow said. 

I'd wonder why you're using Transform here.  You want to turn water into ice for a reason, right?  To make a barrier, or to walk across something, hit somebody with sharp ice objects, whatever. 
So build that power, with "Turning water into ice and" as the SFX. 
 
Also everything dsatow said. 

This is a hot load. 
Playing your character is role-playing.  Being a theater major is acting.  Learn the difference. 
If playing your character requires mechanical abstraction because your character is better at [thing] than you are, using that mechanical abstraction is role-playing. 

Oh, I definitely agree. Metagame knowledge should not be permitted to affect the game.
 
I just think that when it comes to intellectual and social abilities, this cuts both ways to an extent. Yes, we are playing characters who are not (usually) copies of ourselves, with abilities we don't necessarily possess. But RPGs are like boardgames where players have the unique opportunity to "play out" social interactions verbally, and to work out mysteries and find creative solutions to problems themselves. They should be availing themselves of these opportunities rather than sloffing off those responsibilities exclusively to dice rolls. Whenever someone uses dice to resolve a roleplaying opportunity they are, by its very definition, roll playing rather than role playing. Obviously any group is free to allow that if they wish; I'm just saying that it's like buying a boat but never taking it out onto the water. Might as well just buy a picture or model of a boat instead.

I just have to disagree here. While role play is very important, but I am loathe to step on a players intent for their character, unless the character is unbalancing. If they want a chance to play Sherlock Holmes, and don’t have any deductive skills, I’m fine with that and I do not see Roll Play and Role Play as mutually exclusive. As a GM, I see my job as entertaining my players with a problem for the evening. Having good role players adds to my entertainment, but not all my friends can do it well. They are still my friends. The thing is,?one has to treat each player as an individual, and plan accordingly. 

To my mind this is the Roll Playing vs. Role Playing debate, and while I fall somewhere in the middle on that, my old school gaming background pulls me closer to the role playing camp than to the roll playing camp. When it comes to mental and social activities in the game, I want the players to do most of the work themselves, and not rely on dice rolls. My rule of thumb is simple: if you aren't comfortable portraying a character with high mental and/or social abilities, then don't make one. Turning everything you do into a dice rolling exercise places too much emphasis on the Game and takes too much focus away from the Role Playing. Combat is different, of course, because the usual flow of play is suspended while everyone plays a skirmish-level wargame for a couple of hours.

Thank you, but no.

Actually that’s not entirely true. Introversion, spectrum, and social anxiety may limit
amplayer’s desire to talk. If the player is not disruptive and otherwise engaged with the game, I am not going to make them uncomfortable. Sure I will ask them questions, but role play can put a player into a vulnerable and potentially embarrassing situation, and a few players will clam up under pressure. I haven’t had a lot of these players, but I have had a few, and rolling their skills, especially social skills is allowed. 
 

At the risk of derailing things.   I think maybe part of the issue is the renaming of the city when rebuilt.   Even going Robocop and New Detroit-ing it would have not 'erased' the city.  Giving it a new name feels more like replacing something new that ignores the old.   This is all very subjective, but taking a 'real' city in game world context and then making it fictional one did always feel a little odd.    New Detroit:  The Millennium City, would have solved that maybe to a degree.
 
For my votes on the main topic though.   I think that a few more options all over the country would be nice, even if they are not overly detailed.   If we are going to have fictionalized cities in the DC style then lets have more than just New York city five different times.

You're looking at needing a bunch of different things. 
"Name, Title": Detect Biographical Information, Discriminatory, maybe Analyze. 
"Level": Detect Generic Level of Power, Discriminatory.  Also need a long conversation with the GM to figure out how that works.  Does giving a person a blaster increase their level?  What about power armor?  So on and so forth. 
"Brief description of their attitude toward him": This is Telepathy.  You don't do mind-reading via senses. 
"Current status effects": You'd have to define what a status effect is in HERO terms first. 
"Stats": Analyze on Detect Generic Level of Power, assuming your GM lets you buy this.  I wouldn't. 
 
But really, talk with your GM about this.  They're the one to speak with because they might have opinions and insights on the subject none of us here would.  And anything we say is useless if your GM disagrees. 

This seems unnecessarily intricate for that effect.  "STR +10, Only for combat, Only against enemies character has already spent [time period] fighting this combat" seems like a much cleaner method of doing comeback strikes or "now I know how to fight you" ability.  No messy tracking of exact margins of success and cumulative modifiers and the GM having to remember to apply those things, just add 2d6 to your punch/kick/grab/escape because your martial artist knows how best to do so now.  Adjust base power as needed for whatever attack you're using (or switch to CSLs to fit anything), change the numbers and add other Advantages/Limitations such as 0END or No KB as desired.  Alternatively, do something similar with an Aid construct. 
I'll note that I really don't like reducing defenses because that leads to nasty memory issues and speed issues.  Did the GM reduce their defense against your attack?  By the right amount?  Only against your attack?  You probably have to remind them of the exact amount (you are keeping track, right?) anyways.  And then they have to do subtraction instead of you doing a bit more addition, so that's slower, and there's the general cognitive load of all this, and it's just a big mess at the table.  Far far easier on the GM if you just roll more dice when appropriate and tell the GM the damage number that they do the same thing with as anything else. 
 
I agree that the old version of FW was powerful, but I don't think this is much weaker in theory.  A fairly comparable investment into this version should get better results over an extended fight, since you can retry indefinitely with no penalties and you're making linear progress.  Also, you could double-tap FW on your first Phase and get a pretty hefty amount of defense reduction for the entire fight, which is very tempting if you're starting on P12 and most of the STUN you put out by attacking would be post-12'd away anyways.  It's not like you have to worry about the FW turning off either, being unable to use it for a full Turn is such a long time that any enemy capable of eluding you for that long is either outright immune to your FW and just didn't have that Invisibility or whatever on at the start or has such a mobility edge that they can leave or take all the Recoveries (and probably attacks) they want in total safety and thus you're not winning anyways. 
 
You've reintroduced FW, but I don't feel you've removed the problems with FW. 
I can't speak for feel.  I'm perfectly fine with "this +4 damage is because the attack pierces defenses" but that's a purely subjective stance. 
The mechanics are absolutely not clean, unfortunately.  Way too much small math and tallying going on to be clean. 

That would be a faster method for sure.  It would also help reduce the problems with having half dice or +1 on Killing Attacks.   I appreciate the insights from everyone.  Even though I've known HERO for a long time, there are always new corners I've never really touched on before.

This does not work.  The rules for power frameworks specifically prohibit a slot in one framework from “adding to, or modifying the slot in the same or another framework, or the same or another framework as a whole”. 
 
One thing that might work is to use the requires multiple focus or it functions at reduced effectiveness.  Consider the bow and arrows to be separate focus.  To use the multipower at full you require both foci.  If they take away the bow you can still use the arrows In a limited manner.  A lot of it is going to be up to the GM.  
 

Talk it over with your players and figure out if they're actually onboard with this first.  The possible "twist value" isn't worth the possible "this isn't what I signed up for" factor.  And once you've had that conversation you're in a perfect place to transition into mining them for ideas which will be vastly better than anything we can give you since they'll come from the people you're playing with and who best know their own tastes. 

What if we change the focus of Find Weakness  completely from what it used to be in earlier versions of Hero?
 
What if Find Weakness now reveals the limitations that players have taken on their powers? It would become more useful to the Master Villain who learns what can cause the heroes' power to fail.
 
For example; we know that Human Torch cannot maintain his fire form without oxygen; so the villain can prepare traps to deal with that weakness (or limitation) of the Hero.
 
Just a different tactic to consider.

I completely disagree with this sort of supervillain build. It sets a VERY bad example for GMs and can easily instantly sour a player's desire to continue with your game. This is for MANY reasons, but I'll focus here just on the first that instantly leapt out at me.
 
You have here a character that can AND WILL kill player characters with one hit! I've seen GMs have to fudge their game to avoid killing characters with 5d6 killing attacks and here you have one with a 6 1/2d6 killing attack!  The normal attack too of 21d6 is again utterly out of whack. At least it's not area effect mind you, I'll give you that (yes, I've seen at least one GM deploy a massive, obliterate with one shot, area attack before and steadfastly be adamant this was not a problem).  I promptly dropped that game. Players have to be able to trust their GM to participate in their collaborative storytelling adventure. You are NOT "the enemy", you are NOT "trying to kill them". If the players think otherwise, you have a serious problem.
 
Supervillains should have powerful attack, yes, but not attacks that will one shot obliterate reasonably constructed characters. Their fearsomeness can come from high but not impossibly high defenses combined with damage reduction, along with a breadth of powers, resources and henchmen.

Buy your arrow multipower/charges/whathaveyou. Buy the bow as the range effect on the arrows.