Istaran

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower Or make them visible as an overriding default. IPE is available in ECs too.

Re: Does anyone use the Independent Limitation?

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? I missed this one earlier. As I recall, the HA rules specifically allow multiple HAs (such as those above) to be added together into one attack. So in this case he can make a 16d6 attack using all of his HAs for 10 END (5 for STR, 1 per HA). This is not allowed for advantaged HAs if the advantages don't match, but those HAs are already limited to doubling thier damage by adding STR, so they avoid the degeneracy shown here. If I were GMing, I'd require the HAs to be combined into one attack rather than allow an MPA. And I've already commented on my thoughts regarding applying DC caps to MPAs.

Re: Does anyone use the Independent Limitation? Having reread it (thank you for posting it, as I did not have my book handy), I see nothing in it that makes it more of a thing that is usable by anyone than a Universal Focus. Only that it also makes it so you can permanently lose the points. I see it saying things that are already covered by Universal Focus. I see it listing non-sequitors about mages flooding the markets with wands. I think the issue I am claiming, as someone admittedly far less experienced than yourself, is that if Independant is used in a lopsided way (i.e. one person has a bunch of Independant on their character sheet) then they are getting a huge point savings which is only plausibly offset if the limitation is brought into play (i.e. there is a real threat of the points being removed. It is not entirely necessary that the points are removed.) If everyone in the campaign has Independant things on hand, then their power level is simply different than thier point total would indicate. So as an "overarching strategy at the campaign level" it is almost certainly fine. As an individual power purchase made at one PCs discression, it can cause problems. The OP should probably look at your website for useful info on a way to use Independant in a "overarching strategy at the campaign level" for valuable results.

Re: Does anyone use the Independent Limitation? The standard way to build this is a Universal Focus. It has the advantage that allies can take and use the item. It has the disadvantage that enemies can take and use the item. It is not worth any change in point value from a Personal Focus that does not have those traits. Independant says you get -2 worth of Limitation from the fact that you can permanently lose your points. One of the horror stories I was told about Hero system gone wrong was about a player who put most of his points into two items: A OAF(gun), Independant built as a multipower with all of his attacks and a OIF(power armor), Independant which I believe was built as an EC. He completely dominated combat, of course, until the GM got fed up and had a villain disarm his gun, and take it and throw it in a lake. After much whining, the GM let him find his gun. The GM then promptly required the player to remove the character from his campaign and never use Independant in his presence again. Independant should never be allowed if the player is not going to be willing and able to play the character after all those points are taken away. It can be used in responsible and fun ways. But as a general rule, any -2 limitation should be one you really don't want to have on your power. 1 charge per day is really limiting. Independant should be too. But it only is if the threat of losing the points permanently is very real.

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? That is absolutely true. I feel it is fair to disallow MPAs for bought equipment (especially when there is TWF rules in the game). Restrict MPAs to seperately bought powers. (So +5 doublings would be required to use TWF rules as well.) So have them pay 15 points to do TWF in heroic or face the penalties. In superheroic again I wouldn't allow +5 for x2 to be usable as an MPA. And they can already pay 13 points to eliminate the offensive penalties for Sweep. A big part of the reason for this thread was to see where MPA breaks down as a balanced mechanic and becomes out of line with the alternatives (particularly where it becomes too powerful).

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? Yes, for the same price you can get a whole seperate attacks, or negate the penalties to use your one attack 3 times. Things that target Power Defense are generally half as much bang for your buck (1d6 for 10 on Drain for example. Suppress hits hard up front, but requires END maintainance. AVLD attack vs Pow Def is a costly advantage.) which is part of the reason people don't just make all their attacks vs Power Defense in the first place. And the Sweeper could fairly cheaply replace his single 60pt attack with a 60pt multipower of attacks vs different defenses that he can sweep (viability may vary based on character concept and SFX of course). The cost to negate the defense penalties scales according to DCV, rather than offensive output, which makes it scarier on bricks and weaker on MAs and such; the cost of an MPA scales on offensive output. I will grant, however, that it's generally easier to get some kind of discount on an attack power (EC? Uh, harder to do it multiple times on the same character. Why is the GM letting you have two ECs with different attack powers you can use together? OAF? Incredibly easy to come by.) than it is to get discounts on a bunch of skills. If you spent the 60 extra points upping the DC of your main attack it would be far more deadly. Instead of 18x2 = 36 STD (as two hits, so less likely stunning), you get 18+42 = 60 STD as one hit, much more likely stunning. So versus the same point investment it fails. Versus the no penalty 3-hit sweep I think it roughly breaks even (advantage sweep: chance to do 3x damage instead of 2x damage. Also, cost scales on DCV not damage output, so some characters get it darn cheap. The offense portion was only 13 cp after all. Advantage MPA: Possibility of differing defenses and/or differing effects (flash in particular benefits I think. For other things it seems better to focus your attention on dropping one characteristic, be it STUN, BODY, or one of the alternative debilitating ones like DEX or PRE). Also only need one successful roll to hit twice, instead of the repeated chance for failure). a) STUN lottery is a problem, period. If there are DC caps and all the attacks involved are at or near them, this is true of both Sweep and MPA. Sweep is worse as you get 3 shots instead of 2. (MPA can get up to 3 shots.. for another 5 pts per DC investment.) c) If there are not DC caps, a max'd STUN multiplier on both of two attacks at X DCs each is less of an issue than a max'd STUN multiplier on one single attack at 2X DCs. (And the 2X DCs attack could be sweeped, even if the attacker has to pay the usual penalties.) MPAs are just too weak, unless they're used to bypass campaign DC limits. And if you already let Sweep do that, MPAs seem to be a costlier way of catching up. PSLs aren't available for the Sweep penalties, though 2-pt levels with Sweep specifically are. I'm also not quite sure about it being harder to hit with two weapons than one.. shouldn't it at least be more likely that at least one hits? In some cases at least? For powers in general there's a lot of possible SFX conciderations as well. Maybe my laser attack ionizes a direct trail through the air, making it practically guaranteed my lightning blast will hit if the laser does, but either can be used without the other. Maybe my two autofire guns fire tracer rounds, and seeing both streams of bullets arcing through the air makes it easier to see how I need to adjust the aim on both. Or maybe both of my mutant power rays come out of the same palm with the same tragectory, so the aiming of it is no different using only one of the power rays as using all seven together. SFX can just as easily demand a bonus as a penalty when doing a MPA, or no modifiers at all. Game balance seems to be fine except for the whole skirting of DC caps. (But DC caps seems to be the only thing that really suggests MPAs on anything but linked attacks as anything other than an inefficient character build.)

Re: Dropping defences It will depend how common Healing/Aid are. But a lim definately seems like the way to go. Seems like it would also be a prereq for 'Always On' on your Power Defense. Hmm.. -1/4 = you have to completely drop your PowD to get full effect from Aid/Succor/Heal. Risky in combat sometimes, but otherwise not a big deal. -3/4 = your PowD always reduces Aid/Succor/Heal. You have a harder time being assisted, and that flaw becomes more pronounced the more you buy up PowD (as does the point savings). Maybe -0 = Only certain types of beneficial powers are blocked (Aid and Succor but not Heal) but that also allows Always On to be taken. So -1/2 = your PowD always blocks some types of beneficial adjustments but never blocks others (blocks Aid/Succor but never Heal in this case). I'm happy with it.

Re: Yes, but what about the other guys?

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? The problem with this again is that it makes Linked an advantage that saves you points. If we did have punative MPA rules, maybe Linked between two attacks becomes a -0: Pro is you take no MPA penalties, Con is you can't use them seperately. Also, as I've pointed out, for comparable points right now you can either buy a whole 'nother attack to attack with two powers at once (MPA) or buy off the penalties to Sweep and use the same attack three times with the only downside being the multiple attack rolls. If someone pays straight up for a whole 'nother attack (as opposed to making it an MP slot) do they need to be put even farther behind the person who instead buys off the Sweep penalties?

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? Well right now we have.. assuming, say a DEX 30 and a 60 AP attack, you can spend 5 pts for Rapid Attack to make Sweep/Rapid Fire a 1/2 phase. Spend 8 pts for +4 OCV with Sweep or Rapid Fire. Buy 9 5pt DCV levels limited to Only while Sweep/Rapid Fire DCV penalties apply (what kind of lim is that? Less so for a character that sweeps all the time?). That's 58 pts before whatever lim we get on the DCV levels. Now when Sweeping for 3 attacks, you have no to hit penalties, no time penalties, and no DCV penalties (10 from DEX + 9 = 19. 19 / 2 = 10 (Hero math)) Or for 60 pts before lims you can buy a second 60 AP power. If you MPA with them both it takes a 1/2 phase, has no OCV or DCV penalties (except for OCV levels being pricier). The difference: for the MPA you only roll once, no two rolls to miss on. For Sweep/Rapid Fire you have to roll thrice, but can mix it up (trip disarm and throw, attack three opponents, or just blast thrice). Also you are getting three attacks for the price of two. And wierdly, the cost scales based on your DCV, rather than the actual power of your attacks. The MPA person has to pay for a whole other attack. Again the MPA only seems to be a problem when it's allowed to bypass AP/DC caps that the rest of the campaign adheres to. (And I especially don't like the idea of slapping a bunch of penalties like Sweep and Rapid Fire have on something like HKA: Knife + Drain(REC): Poison, or EB: Electric Blast + Drain(DEX): Electric disorientation when they're specifically bought as Linked.)

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? If it did not affect all of the attacks, I would have skipped the CSLs. It is the fact that they add to each attack that convinced me to add them to try and see if I could make an MPA that is too powerful. It seems like it's only too powerful if you use it as a way to bypass AP/DC caps, not as compared with other uses of the same character points.

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? In Heroic games, 2 CSLs (3pt or higher) can be traded for +1 DC. In Superheroic games, 2 CSLs (3pt or higher) can instead be traded for +3 STUN on a normal attack or +1 BODY on a Killing attack (before STUN multiplier). In both cases, the damage is maxed at the existing max for the dice. Given I was putting 180 AP toward attacking, I assumed Superheroic was more appropriate and went with those rules. In an MPA this is on each hit, but the CSL must cover all of the attacks used. The fact that the CSLs are hitting the limit of the dice on an average roll in this case, means you aren't even getting your full bang for your buck with them, since they are quite likely to be clipped.

Re: Yes, but what about the other guys? Fixed (and/or broken). May require Wish to accomplish.

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? Okay, thanks for the tip. What's TUB?

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? In the MPA defenses are fully counted twice. In the 2x AP version with Reduced Penetration, defenses are counted twice only against BODY, not STUN. They generate the same BODY and knockback, but one generates more STUN. Also, while you get 'double jeopardy' for the STUN multiplier, the results of a 6 coming up are notably less severe in this case. And I could be wrong, but I thought MPAs only stun a target if a single attack deals enough STUN past defenses. Reduced Penetration definitely does not have that restriction. Ah, okay. This is allowed by the rules. He paid for both attacks: The multipower pool cost at least as much as the attack on its own would have and he had a premium on top of that for having alternative powers to switch between. The EC + its attack power cost at least as much as the attack power alone. The overall discount from the EC is supposed to be a subsidy to characters with relatively tight coherent concepts. The issue here wasn't MPAs being used in this way being unbalanced, it was that MPAs are designed to be balanced against CP but not against AP/DC limits. I'm thinking something like AP/DC of the biggest attack plus half AP/DC of each additional attack needs to be within the AP/DC limit or you disallow the MPA. At least require them to Sweep/Rapid Fire instead (which would be legal even if they paid for only one attack). (The half AP/DC is to compensate for the double dipped defenses. If the secondary attack is NND/AVLD they are getting about half the extra damage they would have gotten just adding the extra AP/DCs to thier main attack.) Or maybe MPAs are fine with AP/DC limits used as is, but only if everyone is aware up front of this option and uses it more? Maybe everyone in your game should be using either MPA or Sweep or Rapid Attack on a regular basis. 5 cp (Rapid Attack skill, HTH or Ranged to suit) + 8 cp (+4 with Sweep or +4 with Rapid Fire) negates all the offensive penalties for a 3-shot Sweep or Rapid Fire; enough limited 5 pt CSLs (Only when using Sweep/Rapid Fire) can nullify the DCV penalties as well (GM permission required, as technically CSLs can only apply to OCV if they're limited, unless the GM makes an exception). None of this requires you to buy a second attack power, and it lets you take 3 shots at the campaign AP/DC max. Only penalty left is the first miss ruins the sequence issue.

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? As we've pretty much shown to my satisfaction at least, this is far more powerful than the MPA approach. Though perhaps offset by STUN Lotto double jeopardy. Multiple slots from the same framework are never allowed in an MPA according to the book, only Powers in the same slot (which means they MUST be Linked and at least one cannot be used without the other). (At least in 5r) I don't like the +5 for x2 rule, as it causes problems both with MPAs and the ability to spread the wealth. (We build a team of the ArmorSmith, the WeaponSmith, and the Cobbler, and GadgetMan. Each makes a distinct multipower (maybe EC for the armor and VPP for the utility belt if the GM is drunk enough) and takes +10 for x4 to spread them around. Whatever points you spend on that gear gets leveraged up to x4 value. (though you maybe lose a little bit from having relatively homogenous characters in play. The raw power makes up for it.) The Martial Arts one is kind of a problem but kind of regulated by the GM. The book says to not allow an MPA of manuevers that serve the same purpose, especially raw damage. So while you can Disarm and Legsweep you can't Offensive Strike and Martial Strike. (Not sure about Legsweep + a pure damage manuever but I'd say no. I'd also probably deny Legsweep + Grab/Throw) I think the GM ought to, based on the MPA rules, deny any martial manuever MPA that has multiple damage dealing attacks. They can Sweep if they want to hit with multiple martial arts.

Re: Cost efficient VPPs Do you really need to suddenly call up a 150 AP power you never had before on a regular basis? It might be helpful for you if you assume a 60AP cap (or self impose one) so for your master of X, have a 60 pt VPP with 60 pt control cost (as discussed, with a -1/2 SFX lim this works out fine). That leaves 230 pts to build the rest of your character. Use that to buy your characteristics, skills, typical defenses, commonly used movement power(s), etc. Don't pay double for things you use all the time! That 120 pts is the ability to pull any SFX appropriate Power up to 60 AP out of your <_< >_> house at any time. So teleport master has a solid teleport power (maybe even a MP to more cost effectively switch between high combat distance, the tricky version (0 END, position shift, no relative velocity, safe blind, etc etc.), the long range version (lots of non combat multiples), the Really long range version (megascale, maybe with mass multiples) etc. He can pretty much move around as needed. Maybe he has a 'force field' that reflexively teleports chunks of foam from his house to soak attacks. Maybe he has a RKA to teleport foreign objects into people. And then a 60 pt VPP to teleport things from home. I would say a lim for Only Things in my House (which should be strict GM oversight for things not already listed out as bought in game. You probably DO have a flashlight, and almost certainly have toilet paper, but a chainsaw?). I'd say your SFX demands Physical Manifestation and Can Be Missile Deflected be used whenever they are valid limitations (obviously no Physical Manifestation for Entangle and Force Wall as the ability to attack them is built into the power. And Can Be Missile Deflected doesn't make sense for anything but ranged attack powers in general). Anyways, the point is you shouldn't use VPP to cover all of your SFX. In general you don't want things you're using all the time to be in your VPP and cost you double. (If it's Cosmic, it's probably okay to have no attack powers outside the VPP though.)

Re: Can this be done x 2 Okay, so I think you've pretty much got it. What you think of as the term 'power' is in Hero system called a 'Special Effect' (or SFX for short). It is the in game reason why you can create a certain type of effect. A single SFX can justify a number of diverse Powers: That is one SFX, and several Powers justified by it. The key here may simply be that you need to learn the jargon words and map them to your own established vocabulary to help you understand what's what. (Though I would be wary of using Teleport for that SFX. With GM agreement to interpret it a certain way, I've seen IPE on Running used for that (I run so fast you can't see me move!) but strictly speaking it should be Invisibility (perhaps Linked to Running so it only works if you use 100% of your Running? Possibly with the Instant limitation, depending on the exact effects you're going for). Otherwise you can 'Run' through solid objects without harming them, etc.) Most of the time, you shouldn't need VPPs to make the character you want. Remember the mention of my shapeshifter before? To you it made sense that he'd have to spend XP before he can grow claws, etc. So why do you assume most characters wouldn't have a similar restriction? You can use Power skill as a temporary stop-gap to try to do something you haven't really learned how to do yet, and then spend the XP to master the trick later by putting it on your sheet (presumably in a multipower). Most people honestly aren't going to make use of the versatility of a VPP in practice. Another part of it is that there are, shall we say, well behaved SFX and poorly behaved SFX. Cyclops' optic beams are a well behaved SFX; they dish out damage and that's pretty much it. You build it as a EB or RKA, or if you want to get crazy with it build it as a multipower and make a few variation he can do with it. Teleporting yourself is also a well behaved SFX: the game is full of options for moving yourself and what you possess, and teleporting yourself fits into that just fine. Teleporting extrenal objects is not a well behaved power for several reasons: reasoning from the SFX you get a) unreasonable access to inventory; usually we don't worry about what everyday objects people have because they can't reasonably carry everything they can reasonably own so they more or less need to specify what they're carrying on them. When you have a house as a sort of virtual handy haversack, from which you can call up any item on a moment's notice, the basic assumptions about the availability of mundane items breaks down. Everyone else has immediate access to the items the not only own but packed and brought with them in an easily reachable pocket or pouch; you have immediate access to the items you can fit in your house: that's a conciderable Power in and of itself, and one not properly costed in the system. A VPP can handle the need fairly well though. an attack power: using the game system as written, you generally can't attack things by moving things above them and letting go. But the SFX for external teleport tells you you should be able to do that. So we either ad hoc damage every time, or simply build it as an attack power; the second choice gives us the ability to make sure your power level is in line with the opponents and other players. This problem actually goes away if you tighten the SFX to being able to call things into your hand and/or stably on a surface next to you, touching your hand (to cover larger objects you can't lift). That prevents the 'I make it appear in the air above you' trick. Of course, the VPP above can already kind of handle using called items as weapons (since it should handle calling a weapon after all) so it's not too big of a problem. c) focus killer (actually worse): reasoning from the SFX, you get that you should be able to instantly remove anyone's foci, accessible or otherwise, and in fact put them in your possession. (Perhaps not instantly putting on inaccessible foci though.) So anyone with a universal OAF is just giving you free Powers, yay. And anyone with any obvious focus is just going to lose it. This can be built in Hero system in several parts, as a combination of ranged disarm (accessible focii are inherently susceptible to disarm.. in fact that's what disarm does, get accessible focii out of people's hands) probably with linked teleport UAA to get the part about it ending up in your possession instead of knocked away; plus Transform (person with inaccessible focus to person whose inaccessible focus is in your possession) (I've heard of a mage having Transform (person in armor to person adjacent to armor) which is where I got the idea). Generally speaking, Inaccessible Focii mean you're not supposed to lose it unless someone can pin you down for a Turn and strip it form you.. but Transform is kind of the universal change something power, and can probably be used this way. I'm not too familiar with the boundaries between Cosmetic, Minor, Major, and Total Transform though, so someone more experienced will have to estimate which type it is (and whether the UAA Teleport should be required as well). In general, movement powers do not have the effect of Disarm, and especially not the effect of removing Inaccessible Focii (as by the standard rules that's something that requires pinning someone for 12 seconds!) so those are effects (Powers) that should be paid for seperately. In short, Powers give you the Power to do something specific. SFX give you the excuse for why your character could do that. If you chose an ill behaved SFX like "I'm a shapeshifter" you'll either need to accept that you can't do everything that the SFX justifies (just as many of those things as you've scrounged up the points to pay for) or you'll need to buy it as a VPP. Most Hero players accept that they only have so many Powers within their SFX at any given time, and will pick up more as they go.

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others Sounds about right for this one. If the PC was perfectly legal and fine before, and you changed the disads to make a PC that is also perfectly legal and fine then there is no balance reason why the change cannot be allowed. The GM will have to evaluate the appropriateness of the change within the story.

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? I haven't seen them in game yet, but as currently constructed my character can MPA with a couple of str based attacks, DC 11 + DC 12 in a DC 12 limited game, with CSLs for +damage (or +OCV depending if there's an entangle in play or not) and has enough END to do this quite often. So I'm trying to get a feel for how balanced they are, and how far pushing the STR/CSLs in an MPA breaks things. 42 STUN + 30 STUN (from CSLs.) (On the HKAs it adds +BODY and STUN multiplier applies to that. An HAs it is just +3 STUN per 2 CSLs. This all assumes Superheroic rules, but the +DCs on Heroic rules serves a similar function.) Well if the dragon can have 20 3pt levels I imagine you can too. NPCs can be allowed to exceed PC campaign limits. But I don't see why you can't have a good number of 3 pt levels with Sword. The END cost is only 12/Phase according to the book, 18/Phase if you take the reasonable balancing factor of making him pay for STR three times. And dive for cover is a perfectly legit option. If you fail that DEX roll you're in for a world of hurt, but it shouldn't be that hard to dive 1". Superheroic usually doesn't allow hit locations. Otherwise, yes: if the dragon spent that much on offense (especially in a heroic level game!) it probably has no DCV to speak of and you should be fine. (Though if you aborted to dive for cover and it has higher SPD than you.. hope your party can distract it well!) I think I'm coming toward that conclusion. 3 12 DC attacks can be bought for the same AP as 1 24 DC attacks (assume all are HTH and 30 STR). I'm not keen on figuring out the Real cost, because we don't know what Lims will ultimately be on each. For the 3 attacks, you gain 12 DCs (+50% damage output) but triple the defenses you face. So for 21 PD you do 42-21 STUN x 3 = 63 STUN after defenses, or 84-21 STUN = 63 STUN after defenses. Looking at that without CSLs it looks like 21 PD is the break even point.. though if 24 DC attacks are allowed, that's really weak PD. How about a more reasonable 48 PD? The MPA does nothing without CSLs and the 24 DC attack is still getting 36 STUN through. The first 4 CSLs bring the MPA up to bouncing average rolls exactly and the big attack up to 42 STUN through. At 20 CSLs we're getting about 3x24=72 STUN through with the MPA and 72 STUN through with the 24 DC attack on average rolls. That doesn't quite address the average though, as you can't get low enough for any of the attacks to bounce now (+30 STUN will do that, skipping the HKA question for this comparison) but you can easily clip at the top. In fact the 3x12DC attacks are hitting max STUN on an average roll now, but the 24DC attack has room to go another 30 STUN higher. (And it will Stun someone way more often.) ------------ Thanks for everyone helping me think this through.

Re: Innate Powers Archivable Mimic Pool Exactly so. The GM needs to think about how many super powered individuals are going to be running around with innate powers that qualify versus magic, technology, and over the top super kung fu (most or all of which can't be copied). Then factor in the overlap between powers you could copy with that lim and powers you could not. It is somewhat limiting on your power that you can't copy the focus limitation to save yourself some RP when allocating powers, but not nearly as bad as if whole categories of powers were just never available to you. (If mental powers are always 'magic' in your campaign, never mutant powers, that should factor into pricing.) After all of that, the final answer is to check the chart for Limited Power and see how limiting it is as a percentage of the usefulness of the power. So something that takes away half the usefulness is a -1, etc. Oh, and when figuring this all out, your GM should probably factor in that you can immediately go around and permanently copy any qualifying powers from your own team. If you add this character to a balanced and diverse team of supers using all innate powers, suddenly you have a backup user of all the powers in your team! That should already be a versatile and effective character, even if none of your enemies have any qualifying powers.

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others You have some interesting points, BNakagawa. The self-selection issue especially seems like it's right on. You only get a proper appreciation of how the system effects the players when you see the same players in two different systems. As for Physical Disads: I think in Hero they have a tendancy to not be really disads, or at least not to the degree they would be in something like D&D. Hero really doesn't hinge much of its mechanics on the fact that you all of your limbs are in tact and function normally. Try building a D&D character with no arms. In 3.5 they better be a spellcaster or a monk, and if they're a spell caster they have a very short list of spell choices and none of them do damage. Or they take Still Spell and lose a spell level on everything they cast. In 4e it's not quite as severe, but you pretty much want to be a Wisdom based cleric. Or maybe a warforged. You can't use weapons, shields, or most implements (holy symbol is about it). Now try building a Hero character with no arms. You can still do anything a baseline character can do except certain uses of STR (can you Grab someone? With your legs, why not?) and using other people's Foci in some cases. Your own Foci are of course going to be designed for the armless. All of your powers will be built to not require arms. If you take 10 STR worth of TK you barely notice the missing arms. In fact, my current campaign has a GM-PC who is a parapalegic and gets no points for that because he uses TK to move himself (it's just a different SFK on STR effectively). There's a big difference between playing "Guy who can't do the things normally expected of him in the system" and "Guy who can't do a few odd side plot things but is fully functional as a PC." As for psych lims.. I play them all the time in D&D (both 3.5 and 4e). They're not written anywhere, nor do I spell them out the way I would a psych lim in Hero. I think for a while before I first start playing a character about what is this character's point of view (usually one quite off from both my own and any other characters or people I've met) and then play it out as it makes sense. So when I go around with Sin the Librarian, who at one time believed his Race, Gender, and Occupation were all "Librarian", I just have to think What Would the Librarian DO? And ta-da! Instant Psych-lim. And off I go, doing things that make perfect sense only from the POV of the Librarian. (It's amasing how many guards can be pushed past with the line "Out of my way, I'm on Official Library business!") In my local experience, D&D has a mix of 'roleplayers and rollplayers' based on what people actually want to do. Both have fun, and have fun together. Hero has a little more pure roleplayers, but that seems to be more self-selection (and GM selection. The D&D games are open to all, the Hero games tend to be more invitational.) But then we also have the silent player in the corner who is too shy to take the spotlight and just quitely rolls along with the game. He has some psych lims or something, some of which aren't even on his sheet, but the only time we really see it is when he grabs some dice, rolls an unexplained 3d6, and then sometimes decides that obviously that roll means his character is going to do something he (the player) knows is likely to get him killed. He does the same thing in D&D, but then it's a d20.

Re: Yes, but what about the other guys?