Gnome BODY (important!)

How does the initial attacker Block?  He's already made an Attack Action. 
Or are you proposing yet another Trigger to "Automatically attack whenever I declare a Block" (or vice versa)? 

I had a couple paragraphs typed up, but really now.  If you were going to pose this question about 6e Rules-As-Written to Steve, why bring it to us first?  It comes off as pretty insulting to ask a question only to turn around and ask somebody else the exact same question. 

I had a couple paragraphs typed up, but really now.  If you were going to pose this question about 6e Rules-As-Written to Steve, why bring it to us first?  It comes off as pretty insulting to ask a question only to turn around and ask somebody else the exact same question. 

It absolutely can.  HERO is very easy to grok as long as you don't have to touch chargen and you don't touch anything outside your own sheet. 
The thing is that HERO needs to be streamlined at the individual player level instead of at the system level.  Character sheets with rules on them would solve basically everything. 

The big problem you're going to run into is that "Target cannot move for five minutes" basically means "Target loses" and HERO System will make you pay an appropriate amount for such an overwhelming effect. 
 
The problem you'll run into with a Drain DEX is that even at 0 DEX you still get a 9- roll to see if you can act.  Debilitating, but not totally paralyzing. 
A CON Entangle would work, though has the problem that with enough DEF it can be inescapable for some targets unless you allow Haymakering the CON damage roll (which opens a different can of worms). 
Mind Control and Transform would be the other obvious options, and both should work sorta-well. 

At the most basic level, you'll see a sharp divide between "combatants" who invested relatively heavily in fighting and "noncombatants" who invested relatively lightly.  The same will follow for other areas, but this is where it will stand out the most. 
Combat will either suck for the combatants as they steamroll everything, suck for the noncombatants as everything trivially defeats them, suck for you because you have to build elaborate multi-level encounters, or some combination of the above.  The same will follow for other areas, but this is again where it will stand out the most. 
 
No, because a significant balance problem can result from rational actors with differing investment priorities.  Other significant problems arise due to differing investment efficiencies, player execution skill, or ability to predict the obstacles presented by the GM. 
Additionally, "rational and balanced" characters require useful information as input to the character design process.  Being just a couple DCs or CV off from the rest of the party can cause serious problems.  Caps and baselines provide that needed information while also communicating the expectation of "these numbers shall be adhered to". 

At the most basic level, you'll see a sharp divide between "combatants" who invested relatively heavily in fighting and "noncombatants" who invested relatively lightly.  The same will follow for other areas, but this is where it will stand out the most. 
Combat will either suck for the combatants as they steamroll everything, suck for the noncombatants as everything trivially defeats them, suck for you because you have to build elaborate multi-level encounters, or some combination of the above.  The same will follow for other areas, but this is again where it will stand out the most. 
 
No, because a significant balance problem can result from rational actors with differing investment priorities.  Other significant problems arise due to differing investment efficiencies, player execution skill, or ability to predict the obstacles presented by the GM. 
Additionally, "rational and balanced" characters require useful information as input to the character design process.  Being just a couple DCs or CV off from the rest of the party can cause serious problems.  Caps and baselines provide that needed information while also communicating the expectation of "these numbers shall be adhered to". 

1) I don't feel they have a useful purpose in a fantasy RPG.  Any mechanical or role-play distinction can already be explained by magic ("Bob, how come your cleric is a hundred and seven?" "Oh, he completed a holy trial of faith a while back and was granted agelessness.  Third sentence of the backstory.") and I don't trust people to be able to appropriately role-play "other species" in real-time (it's hard enough getting some people to role-play anything beyond 'wacky gimmick').  It's certainly doable in writing-time, but I don't play PBP or PBEM so that's a nonfactor to me. 
In my experience "race" is just a mechanical template that winds up underwhelming for what should be such a big deal and a coat of role-play paint on top of a very human character. 
 
2) No.  Give me good old humans-only any day. 
 
3) Non-human characters who act human.  Species-as-culture.  Species-as-real-group.  Crossbreeding except as "a wizard did it".  Any time a character's species doesn't matter. 
 
4) One is the number for me. 
 
5) In my experience, they boil down to stereotypes or visual aids.  I hate that. 

1) I don't feel they have a useful purpose in a fantasy RPG.  Any mechanical or role-play distinction can already be explained by magic ("Bob, how come your cleric is a hundred and seven?" "Oh, he completed a holy trial of faith a while back and was granted agelessness.  Third sentence of the backstory.") and I don't trust people to be able to appropriately role-play "other species" in real-time (it's hard enough getting some people to role-play anything beyond 'wacky gimmick').  It's certainly doable in writing-time, but I don't play PBP or PBEM so that's a nonfactor to me. 
In my experience "race" is just a mechanical template that winds up underwhelming for what should be such a big deal and a coat of role-play paint on top of a very human character. 
 
2) No.  Give me good old humans-only any day. 
 
3) Non-human characters who act human.  Species-as-culture.  Species-as-real-group.  Crossbreeding except as "a wizard did it".  Any time a character's species doesn't matter. 
 
4) One is the number for me. 
 
5) In my experience, they boil down to stereotypes or visual aids.  I hate that. 

1) I don't feel they have a useful purpose in a fantasy RPG.  Any mechanical or role-play distinction can already be explained by magic ("Bob, how come your cleric is a hundred and seven?" "Oh, he completed a holy trial of faith a while back and was granted agelessness.  Third sentence of the backstory.") and I don't trust people to be able to appropriately role-play "other species" in real-time (it's hard enough getting some people to role-play anything beyond 'wacky gimmick').  It's certainly doable in writing-time, but I don't play PBP or PBEM so that's a nonfactor to me. 
In my experience "race" is just a mechanical template that winds up underwhelming for what should be such a big deal and a coat of role-play paint on top of a very human character. 
 
2) No.  Give me good old humans-only any day. 
 
3) Non-human characters who act human.  Species-as-culture.  Species-as-real-group.  Crossbreeding except as "a wizard did it".  Any time a character's species doesn't matter. 
 
4) One is the number for me. 
 
5) In my experience, they boil down to stereotypes or visual aids.  I hate that. 

My group's always felt that punishing somebody for switching characters was silly. 
- If it's a voluntary change, they're either changing to make themselves have more fun or to make somebody else have more fun.  Having more fun should be encouraged, not punished. 
- If it's a character death, they're already suffering from suddenly losing the character they've been playing for the last however long.  Don't force them to play a weaker character on top of that, they'll just wind up having even less fun. 
- If it's a heroic sacrifice, why in the world are you punishing people for heroic sacrifices? 
We're not an early edition HERO group, but we've always given XP to players, not characters. 

My group's always felt that punishing somebody for switching characters was silly. 
- If it's a voluntary change, they're either changing to make themselves have more fun or to make somebody else have more fun.  Having more fun should be encouraged, not punished. 
- If it's a character death, they're already suffering from suddenly losing the character they've been playing for the last however long.  Don't force them to play a weaker character on top of that, they'll just wind up having even less fun. 
- If it's a heroic sacrifice, why in the world are you punishing people for heroic sacrifices? 
We're not an early edition HERO group, but we've always given XP to players, not characters. 

Use <!--UNIQUEID-->

Read the rules regarding.

To be fair, subscription model software is often both product and service.  Your initial purchase is paying for the product, the software.  Every dollar after that is paying for the service, the steady flow of updates and patches. 
The alternatives are rolling versions that require repurchases "FIFA 2020 is out!  FIFA 2019 is obsolete!  Buy FIFA!  Again!", donation funding "Please please please have you considered donating to Wikipedia?", in-software advertisements "Your game will start shortly, after this two minute message from our sponsors.", or discontinued support "Yes, we know the program crashes when you make the right pane blue.  We can't do anything about that.  We have no money.".  Or worse, there's actually some nastier alternatives that I refuse to mention in polite company. 
Or FOSS.  FOSS is pretty great. 

To be fair, subscription model software is often both product and service.  Your initial purchase is paying for the product, the software.  Every dollar after that is paying for the service, the steady flow of updates and patches. 
The alternatives are rolling versions that require repurchases "FIFA 2020 is out!  FIFA 2019 is obsolete!  Buy FIFA!  Again!", donation funding "Please please please have you considered donating to Wikipedia?", in-software advertisements "Your game will start shortly, after this two minute message from our sponsors.", or discontinued support "Yes, we know the program crashes when you make the right pane blue.  We can't do anything about that.  We have no money.".  Or worse, there's actually some nastier alternatives that I refuse to mention in polite company. 
Or FOSS.  FOSS is pretty great. 

That would be hilarious.  Hopefully they both end up skewered, and then you don't have to deal with morons with infinite Triggers anymore.
 
The thing with Triggers is that since 5th edition, they can get pretty expensive.  You have to pay extra for them to reset quickly.  I believe the auto-reset level is a +1 Advantage.  On an attack power (which is what most people are concerned about) that means you're paying a huge amount of points to get an attack that gets past defenses.  In a 12D6 game, a guy with a 6D6 infinite Trigger is just gonna blast through his own Endurance, and he's probably not going to hurt anybody with it.
 
Even if you don't enforce any kind of Active Point cap (so he can buy up the dice and get reduced end on it), that's still a huge amount of points that he's got to pay.  He's gonna have to cut points elsewhere to be able to afford it.

Trigger is an Advantage, but you're describing a Limitation.  You shouldn't have to pay more to get less. 
 
I'd probably build it as [whatever damage shield you feel fits], 0 END, Persistent, Always On, Only For [some fitting interval] After Being Hit by Fire/Lightning Attack. 
When he gets zapped, the Limitation keeping it turned off disengages and it becomes active. 

Sorry for the delay in responding — the latter part of February was unusually busy, and then food poisoning/a stomach bug sidelined me all last week. I’m only now catching up with things.
 
The “minimum STUN damage” done does not add damage to what’s already taken, it simply establishes a minimum that the character can take. If the STUN damage the character takes from the attack is equal to or greater than the minimum, he only takes that STUN damage; if it’s less than the minimum, he takes the minimum.
 
Example:  Due to some weird Limitations on some of his defensive abilities, BobMan takes 6 STUN, 8 BODY from an attack (after applying defenses). Since the minimum STUN damage he can take equals the BODY damage he suffered, he actually takes 8 STUN damage — not the 6 STUN he otherwise would (and definitely not 14 STUN).
 
In a later Segment, BobMan takes 12 STUN, 6 BODY from an attack (after applying defenses). Since the STUN damage (12) already exceeds the minimum STUN he could take due to suffering BODY damage (6), he just takes the 6 STUN damage — the minimum rule doesn’t apply.

massey, he doesn't want "open any lock."
 
He wants to bypass any form of security system, no matter how sophisticated, no matter the nature.  And do it with a finger snap, pretty much.  Sure, systems can be bypassed...but that's talking what kinds of rolls, how many, and taking how long?  With what kinds of support tools?  
 
How tough a Security Systems roll would you make breaking into a highly classified lab doing highly dangerous and/or highly illegal work?  How many layers of security would it have?  Me...it'd be pretty high.  So to crack it that fast, without the usual support tools implicit in skills use...that's at least making the roll by 5, wouldn't you say?  So we're talking mimicking a 23- skill roll, maybe a 25-?  And potentially both security systems and lockpicking simultaneously.  So someone who wanted to build a Master Thief would be sinking HOW many points into doing this?  And those are dedicated *character* points.  
 
I suspect some of this is that it's rare to build the master thief as a PC.  The security system has to be handled;  until it is, the story is likely stonewalled.  If the PCs aren't gonna be involved in the solution, then there's no need to elaborate on the complexities.  That doesn't mean they're not there.  If you allow the complex security system, then it's a lot easier to say that a universal bypass to any and all security systems *should* be expensive, especially as a simple action.  Heck, if it's just broken up into its parts, from a power perspective it's less of a problem. 
 
It's also not simply the power.  It's the degree to which this character can hog the spotlight, and the degree to which he can use his pool to duplicate *hundreds* of points in skills.  So it's not just what it's doiing, but what it represents.  

As one of those game-designy world-buildy folk: 
Why in the world would I reinvent the wheel? 
 
I could certainly start from scratch and make something.  It'd probably take a while and need playtesting and revisions and be a lot of work, and in the end it'd be a pretty neat thing that was all mine. 
Or I could take something somebody else did, and rip out the parts I don't like while adding parts I want.  Way less work, way less time, way more fun for the playtesters since we skip the alpha, and I still get a pretty neat thing in the end.  And it's mineish, which is nice too. 

Well, the bigger problems are that real-neutronium is probably a fluid and that real-neutronium would explode very very violently outside a neutron star's massive gravitational field. 
Compared to that, a bit of weight is no big deal! 

But it won't get your friends through.  Unlocking a door will get your friends through. 

You’re highlighting hdc (character) files.

Being "physics based" doesn't make something "more random" unless it's using a better source of randomness than a PRNG.  It might make it less random, if players have tight control over how they throw the dice. 
If you want really random you need a TRNG, like random.org.