pawsplay

I don't know how I missed that. But there it is.

Caught me while I was editing my previous post.
 
That is a REALLY good reason for making it a Physical limitation.  I'd just never seen that particular "type" of lim built that way.  I've used it a few times and it never once occurred to me that the way I'd built it meant a simple, relatively speaking, Ego roll would "fix" it for that moment.
 
Learn something new every day . . . 
 
Thanks Steve!

Psych: Wants to believe the best of everyone (very common, moderate)
Psych: Overconfidence (very common, moderate)
Psych: Code of Honor, Personalized Kryptonian and Citizen of the Galaxy (common, strong)
Hunted: Anti-alien faction working within the government
Hunted: Any villainous Kryptonians or Daxamites that learn of her existence
Vulnerability: x1 1/2 effect from Strength drains
Phys: Didn't grow up on Earth, has some holes in knowledge (infrequently, barely) (5)

Likewise, a smoke arrow is different from a net arrow or a shoot-them-in-the-head arrow.
 
But a glue arrow isn't different from a net arrow, and you don't need five different kinds of shoot-them-in-the-head arrow.
 
That's entirely reasonable. However, a blanket prohibition on using Multiforms for such things should be considered as a House Rule.
 
That's not awful. It's well documented that even Gary Gygax used a bunch of house rules in his D&D games.

@pawsplay lol
 
Also, in Dark Champions, STR 15 is the minimum for Navy SEALs, which makes sense, given the need foe exceptional upper body strength in the Teams.

"How and why did you learn that spell?" is equivalent to "How and why do you have a laser pistol?" No, you cannot just spend an experience point and learn any old spell. When your character was created, all their spells have a stated or implied origin in your character's magical training. That doesn't disappear just because you have an experience point. Further, if spells are supposed to be something that are hard to learn, you aren't necessarily entitled to spend those points willy-nilly. Learning a new spell every other month might be unreasonable. Just because you have points to spend on a Follower doesn't mean you can suddenly acquire a squire while traveling through the desert. You might be able to, but you have to justify it.

It isn't any different. The point of the random gadget multipower is to be enabling.  The point of not allowing a multipower for spells is not to be enabling. Gadget multipowers make sense if you want characters to have a bag of gadgets they can use one at a time. Multipower spells make sense if you want to have characters able to use a variety of spells, one at a time.
There are several main issues with spell Multipowers, even before you get into thematics. First, a battle with a mage on each side can quickly turn into Calvinball. That is, they start spitballing increasingly bizarre spell constructs at each other until someone rolls poorly or someone hits about the situationally useful spell construct. Second, spells can be had cheap. While that is not inherently gamebreaking, it's annoying. A character built around such shenanigans can trivialize a greater number of obstacles and can step on more toes. Third, character complexity shoots through the roof. A twenty-slot Multipower is not a joy in play. Fourth, every single slot needs to be vetted as its own power.
I'm not going to belabor thematics. I don't like magic to be too "easy" in the first place. Putting a bunch of easy spells into a framework that makes things easy is not something I find appealing. I don't want to run a game where a character goes, oh, I switch to this slot and cast this spell. Then I switch and cast this spell. With every spell being basically a weapon, a can opener, or a frustrating defense. Even comic book mages like Doctor Strange don't work this way. He has dozens of commonly used spells, but similar spells have similar limitations. Some of his magic requires his Orb. Some of it is personal magic, some of it is dimensional.
As far as thematics, the Multipower system leaves very little room for ritual magic.
I'm not saying the Multipower-of-whatever-spells system is wrong, I just think it has significant gameplay and thematic drawbacks. If you are going to allow a bunch of versatile super-mages as PCs, I think that does raise some questions about what else do you allow. Why shouldn't the fighter have a magical Multipower as well? What if someone wants to play a frost giant? Can the deceptive rogue have PRE 30? If you want to run a game where the PCs are fairly unlimited characters who can steamroller over a bunch of challenges before eventually succumbing to their inherent weaknesses, you certainly can.
In general, a Multipower that is unlimited in scope is just less magical, and hence less desirable to me.

1) Each species or race should represent some difference in body or mind from humans. Like elves are aloof and ageless. Halflings are very human-like, but subtle; they hide easily and they don't get caught up in forging empires or become ring-wraiths and such. A half-elemental has some minor super-powers. The purpose is to have an experience outside the ordinary. If you find yourself using species or races as stand-ins for human or human-like ethnicities, back up and turn around, you have made a wrong turn.
2) That really depends. Sometimes I prefer a human-centric campaign, with maybe some elves or snake people in the background. Generally speaking, for high fantasy I prefer the standard Tolkien set, or a different cluster of core species. A friendly world, but not crowded, where some races have significant secrets from each other.
3) Monolithic cultures. Dwarves are one sore spot for me, with dwarves being modeled heavily on Thorin's company and Norse myths. But the dwarves in the Hobbit were distraught over being reduced to coal-mining; they were aristocrats, perhaps not representative of tradesmen, or more stay-at-home types. Dwarves in Krynn do everything underground, and so they eat wear subterranean monsters and drunk mushroom beer and other stuff I find weird. I imagine dwarf fortresses to be mighty mountain keeps, but I also imagine farmlands surrounding, with lower status dwarves, and halfing, gnome, and human tenants farming, ranching, and hunting. Each race, particularly if it's at all widespread, should have cultural and tribal differences within it. Even a small group of extraplanar refugees should have factions. Also, while it's fine in my book for a species to be "evil" in the sense of being almost universally a threat, any intelligent being should have some capacity, however atrophied, to make choices of free will.
4) If you want to do high fantasy, "zero" is too few. If there are giants and elves at all in your setting, there should be some provisions for playing one. But twenty common races is too many. But if the setting has a major metropolitan center, or is at a planar nexus, or in a massive ringworld, there is no such things as too many. There could be hundreds, with some being entirely unaware of each other.
5) Conflict. Reason versus emotion. Talent versus pitiability. Many versus few. Old versus new. Kindness versus cruelty. Indifference versus curiosity. Human versus alien. Supernatural versus mundane.

The gist may be that Multiform exists so you can make characters who transform, but the text clearly states that one consequence is that a modular weapon is also an option. Also, Ron says that anything is fair game if it works, we should be looking at what the character does, not some abstract concept. Also, also, Ron told me he found it perplexing people kept making characters with several powerful, versatile forms. He called them "Swiss army knife" characters. So focusing on the "actually has multiple forms" aspects can be overdone, too, in the Ron way of thinking. So I think it's safe to say Ron has some opinions, and he's also fine with other people have opinions. Champions Now is his thesis, what you do with it is on you.

Well since she beat me down I've been out doin' in my head
Come too late at night and in the mornin' I just lay in bed
Well, Gronda you look so fine (look so fine)
And I know it wouldn't take much time
For you to help me Gronda
Help me get her out of my heart
 
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda yeah
Get her out of my heart
 
She was gonna steal my wife
At least that was her plan
But she let the police come between us
And it shattered our man

Well, Gronda you caught my eye (caught my eye)
And I can give you lotsa reasons why
You gotta help me Gronda
Help me get her out of my heart
 
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda yeah
Get her out of my heart
 
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda yeah
Get her out of my heart
 
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
Help me Gronda
Help, help me Gronda
 
With apologies to the Beach Boys

1) Each species or race should represent some difference in body or mind from humans. Like elves are aloof and ageless. Halflings are very human-like, but subtle; they hide easily and they don't get caught up in forging empires or become ring-wraiths and such. A half-elemental has some minor super-powers. The purpose is to have an experience outside the ordinary. If you find yourself using species or races as stand-ins for human or human-like ethnicities, back up and turn around, you have made a wrong turn.
2) That really depends. Sometimes I prefer a human-centric campaign, with maybe some elves or snake people in the background. Generally speaking, for high fantasy I prefer the standard Tolkien set, or a different cluster of core species. A friendly world, but not crowded, where some races have significant secrets from each other.
3) Monolithic cultures. Dwarves are one sore spot for me, with dwarves being modeled heavily on Thorin's company and Norse myths. But the dwarves in the Hobbit were distraught over being reduced to coal-mining; they were aristocrats, perhaps not representative of tradesmen, or more stay-at-home types. Dwarves in Krynn do everything underground, and so they eat wear subterranean monsters and drunk mushroom beer and other stuff I find weird. I imagine dwarf fortresses to be mighty mountain keeps, but I also imagine farmlands surrounding, with lower status dwarves, and halfing, gnome, and human tenants farming, ranching, and hunting. Each race, particularly if it's at all widespread, should have cultural and tribal differences within it. Even a small group of extraplanar refugees should have factions. Also, while it's fine in my book for a species to be "evil" in the sense of being almost universally a threat, any intelligent being should have some capacity, however atrophied, to make choices of free will.
4) If you want to do high fantasy, "zero" is too few. If there are giants and elves at all in your setting, there should be some provisions for playing one. But twenty common races is too many. But if the setting has a major metropolitan center, or is at a planar nexus, or in a massive ringworld, there is no such things as too many. There could be hundreds, with some being entirely unaware of each other.
5) Conflict. Reason versus emotion. Talent versus pitiability. Many versus few. Old versus new. Kindness versus cruelty. Indifference versus curiosity. Human versus alien. Supernatural versus mundane.

1) Each species or race should represent some difference in body or mind from humans. Like elves are aloof and ageless. Halflings are very human-like, but subtle; they hide easily and they don't get caught up in forging empires or become ring-wraiths and such. A half-elemental has some minor super-powers. The purpose is to have an experience outside the ordinary. If you find yourself using species or races as stand-ins for human or human-like ethnicities, back up and turn around, you have made a wrong turn.
2) That really depends. Sometimes I prefer a human-centric campaign, with maybe some elves or snake people in the background. Generally speaking, for high fantasy I prefer the standard Tolkien set, or a different cluster of core species. A friendly world, but not crowded, where some races have significant secrets from each other.
3) Monolithic cultures. Dwarves are one sore spot for me, with dwarves being modeled heavily on Thorin's company and Norse myths. But the dwarves in the Hobbit were distraught over being reduced to coal-mining; they were aristocrats, perhaps not representative of tradesmen, or more stay-at-home types. Dwarves in Krynn do everything underground, and so they eat wear subterranean monsters and drunk mushroom beer and other stuff I find weird. I imagine dwarf fortresses to be mighty mountain keeps, but I also imagine farmlands surrounding, with lower status dwarves, and halfing, gnome, and human tenants farming, ranching, and hunting. Each race, particularly if it's at all widespread, should have cultural and tribal differences within it. Even a small group of extraplanar refugees should have factions. Also, while it's fine in my book for a species to be "evil" in the sense of being almost universally a threat, any intelligent being should have some capacity, however atrophied, to make choices of free will.
4) If you want to do high fantasy, "zero" is too few. If there are giants and elves at all in your setting, there should be some provisions for playing one. But twenty common races is too many. But if the setting has a major metropolitan center, or is at a planar nexus, or in a massive ringworld, there is no such things as too many. There could be hundreds, with some being entirely unaware of each other.
5) Conflict. Reason versus emotion. Talent versus pitiability. Many versus few. Old versus new. Kindness versus cruelty. Indifference versus curiosity. Human versus alien. Supernatural versus mundane.

By default. But Drain PRE as "fear" is not a typical construction and it should have reasonable constraints. If it's a "soul drain" that reduces your ability to resist fear, I guess that's valid. In which case the Thrall construction may need some. But that seems so exotic. At the last Power Drain, Only versus fear, should be worth -1 or -1 1/2 as a limitation because that's maybe one power in the campaign. But honestly if the Thrall has the fear-based defense, and the Darkness of Soul Draining spell is described as inducing fear, I might rule based on the special effects the Thrall's Mental Defense applies against it. Or hopefully, the Thrall's massive PRE buffer is enough.
I think most of the time, Presence attacks are based either on an emotional appeal or a test of will, rather than will. But fear-based Pre Attacks are not exactly rare. If a Thrall is affected by a roaring lion man, he or she isn't "afraid," the Thrall hesitates because the opponent's spirit causes them to hesitate and recalculate their tactics. But if a wight pops out and says "boo!" the Thrall just throws alchemical fire on it and then cleaves it with their greatsword.
It could also be noted as a 0-pointer that Thralls innately, psychologically resist fear, so Pre-based attacks based primarily on fear always go against their EGO. I think that's a valid choice, and could be noted in the text of the Thrall Fearlessness talent which they all have.

STR 20 is a an axe-wielding fighter. STR 25 is Batman wrestling a bear and winning.

Honestly I think it goes back to Aaron Allston's players being babies.

STR 20 is a an axe-wielding fighter. STR 25 is Batman wrestling a bear and winning.

Sounds like one of the  Thralls of Talislanta.
Psychological Complication: Cannot comprehend magic, frequently, fully impairing. Basically the character would not be able to succeed at any check to understand something magical, could perceive magic but never grasp how it works, and would not be able to do anything magical at all, whether that's activating a scroll, learning any magical skills, and so forth. That would be worth 25 points. It's also pretty impairing. At greatly impairing, the character is very primitive and still won't comprehend magical stuff, but might be able to make some checks to try. At slightly impairing, the character is more ignorant/incomprehending of magic than most people, like maybe a Cimmerian just out of the mountains. or a modern person in a magical world with only pop culture to guide them. If the complication only pertains to doing magical things, and not just general knowledge, I would downgrade it to infrequently. So the character couldn't use a wand to save their life and can't seize control of magical artifact, but still understands that mages cast spells, might have a general knowledge of what different magical orders do, can understand in a simple way that magic depends on energy or entities or whatever, and so forth. It might not be worth any points if all magical items or rituals require a Magic skill to use, and the character simply lacks it. But if the character can't use a necklace of fireballs or activate a magic carpet that requires the will of the user, that is likely worth something.
 
"Fear" in Fantasy Hero is a special effect. I can think of several things it can do. There's fear-based Presence Attacks. There are things that cause people to flee, like Mind Control. And there are fear rolls people have to make. I think the latter is just an application of Ego. Lots of Ego. Assuming this resistance is much higher than even the most strong-willed normal person, I'd say:
Fearless: +30 Ego, Only versus fear (-1/2); and +20 PRE, only to defend against PRE attacks (-1/2), only fear (-1/2). That's a hefty 30 points. But this character won't fail any normal Ego Roll related to fear without a substantial penalty, and is almost immune to any kind of presence attack that is supposed to be scary, which includes a lot of intimidation attempts. Fear spells would be pretty much useless against this character.  As long as this character isn't also a mage or some kind of omni-competent spy or something, there should be points in the budget for it.
 
An alternative construction:
Mental Defense +30, only against fear (-1/2)
EGO +30,  Only to make Ego rolls (-1/2), only against fear (-1/2)
PRE 20, only defensive, only against fear
That raises the cost to 45. But it also makes the character immune to fear-based mental blasts, and Drains based on fear that are resisted by Mental Defense.

I've literally spent decades fighting the misconception that Fantasy Hero requires players to work out point costs for every object their character picks up.  Simply making everything purchased solves the issue because you won't have any players.

I've paged through the literature, and in my view, literary wizards who can use a sword are more common than those who cannot. Most fantasy literature treats wizards first and foremost as adventurers, mentors, or villains. Garion from the Belgariad uses one, the Grey Mouser, Lythande, some versions of Merlin, Gandalf, most of the wizards in Vance's Dying Earth, and Harry Potter. In movies you can add the evil wizard from the Golden Voyage of Sinbad and the kid from Dragonslayer. Wizards who don't use swords include the old wizard in Dragonslayer, Radaghast the Brown, Skeeve, the conjuror from Krull, Schmendrick.... largely old people and comic relief characters. Almost any character that springs to mind when you say "wizard," with the exception of Raistlin, uses a sword.

I've paged through the literature, and in my view, literary wizards who can use a sword are more common than those who cannot. Most fantasy literature treats wizards first and foremost as adventurers, mentors, or villains. Garion from the Belgariad uses one, the Grey Mouser, Lythande, some versions of Merlin, Gandalf, most of the wizards in Vance's Dying Earth, and Harry Potter. In movies you can add the evil wizard from the Golden Voyage of Sinbad and the kid from Dragonslayer. Wizards who don't use swords include the old wizard in Dragonslayer, Radaghast the Brown, Skeeve, the conjuror from Krull, Schmendrick.... largely old people and comic relief characters. Almost any character that springs to mind when you say "wizard," with the exception of Raistlin, uses a sword.

That has a nice aesthetic. Wealthy city folk might get their weekly wages in gold, but most people don't regularly handle it or see it.

Increasing the cost is really just another way of decreasing the amount. If I'm running high fantasy, I don't necessarily want to say no. Like Conan probably has STR 25. which is fine, but I don't necessarily wanting everyone to have STR 25. Costs affect behaviors, it's as simple as that. Maxima says, I want people to be more or less "normal" people but with skills, talents, and spells. But if someone wants to push that, they certainly can.
It's also training wheels from systems where characters are built from the ground up, rather than the top down. It's a lot more clear to just set the Maxima in place than say, "Uh, why do you have STR 30?"
"What, it's 20 points? Nothing here says not to spend 20 points on Strength."

That's not a problem, that's just setting everyone else up for success! 

During the primary prior to Sander's dropping out of the race, Biden received 10.81 million popular votes to Sander's 8.20 million votes.  That is to say Biden received 32% more popular votes than Sanders.  That is nothing less than a complete drubbing.  So unless you believe that party delegates can and should ignore the wishes of the voters, I do not see why you keep focusing on the delegates.  It is the voters that have chose Biden over Sanders.