Doc Democracy

@Christopher R Taylor, if this was going to be a core use of a power rather than a cool addition that makes the character stand out, I might be keener to bottom this out.
 
I think there is often a readiness to build complex rather than fuzzy.  I prefer to go with something close, that hits the right notes than to plumb the complexities of the system.

The idea is a wave of positive energy which heals everyone and knocks back undead.  HERO does not gave a positive energy power.  We were looking to the best solution.
 
I would allow it as a +0 advantage, you would ask for +1/4. We seem to agree on everything else...
 
I reckon it is, therefore, a GM dependent call and @sevrick can take that into consideration.
 
Doc

2d6 Healing will average 7, which is 3(.5) BOD.  The Knockback should likely be based on "count normal BOD".  The BOD healed is comparable to a 4d6 Blast, which would be reasonable (base of 4 DC).  Allowing it on the normal (average 7) roll is a much greater advantage.
 
As to the "+/- 0", I think they are reasonable in this case.  Yes, it prevents the Knockback affecting your teammates.  It also prevents it affecting the guards on the wall of the castle we want to storm, the bandits sniping from the trees and the charging bear.  ("But you'd have to heal them" is a big fat "so what?" at the start of combat.

You can take a lesser limitation on the activation roll, if it is only to switch on a constant power.  Will go look at the details and edit this.
 
Later...
OK, the requires a roll limitation is +1/2 for 11 or less, you make no change to that if it is only a roll to switch on the power.
 
If that was 11 or less every time you wanted to use the power it would be a +1 limitation. P389 of 6E1.

To my mind, STUN Only was set as a +1/4 advantage offset by -1/4 No Knockback because it will not cause permanent injury (nice in Supers) or damage loot (nice in Fantasy, but the decision was driven by Supers).
 
 
I believe that in 5e it will heal 14 CP of BOD, so 7 BOD and in 6e it will heal 14 CP, halved because BOD is a defensive ability in 6e.
 
 
 
Given that this is +/-0,. I would allow it as "knocks back, but does not heal, Undead".  Recall that Doc is seeking to make the ability work, not to impose roadblocks.

First, I have never seen a party in any Fantasy game that didn't have a healer, so yes it definitely can be frequent. Of could, if you run a game where you do not have healers, then reduce it.
 
Second, knockdown on average is three hexes per dice after the first two dice. This is going with the 2d6 that is taken away from the knockback. So if the player spent 30 points or more for his base healing, it will probably due knockback on an average roll.
 
Third, as for Defense, it is a disadvantage, there is none.
 
Fourth, how is building a complication harder to do then a power. In truth, it is extremely easier.

I am wondering if you really need 4d6 Healing.  On the average 4d6 Healing will heal 14 BODY.  That is a lot of damage.  If you reduce the power to 2d6 healing that is still healing 7 BODY.  Unless this spell is meant to bring people who are down back to full that should be enough.
 
If you only want to knock the undead down Change Environment may be a better way to go. Reducing the healing and using change environment cuts the cost down to a more reasonable level.
 
Here is what I came up with.  2d6 Heal BODY, +1/2  4M selective radius, -1/2 Requires Roll, -1/2 Gestures (both hands), -1/4 Incantations, -1/4 Not vs Undead.  Change Environment -4 DEX roll, +1/4 4m Radius, -1/2 Instant, -1 Only vs Undead, -1/2 Requires Roll, -1/2 Gestures (both hands), -1/4 Incantations, -1/2 Linked to Healing.  That puts the active cost to 45 and the real cost to 15.
 
How it would work would be the character cast the spell and all characters within 4M of the character except undead are healed for 2d6 BODY.  All undead within 4m of the character have to make a DEX roll at -4 or be knocked down.  The penalty to the roll is -4 and it cost 4 END.  Bringing up the healing to 4d6 will increase the active cost to 75 and the real cost to 27 and use 7 END.   
 

Sometimes it looks like you guys are looking for ways to spoil cool concepts but I appreciate the dive into rule wrinkles.
 
 
 
I think, like CRT, if you are looking at bare mechanics, then nothing is implied.  Just because you are adding an area effect heal with an area effect Blast does not mean those areas are the same.  You might have a mortar that fires energy at an enemy while the backlash heals those close to the mortar. 🙂
 
As such, you limit the Blast to ensure its effects overlay the heal.
 
 
Anything that limits the use of a power limits the power, IMO. If I am going to stop the Blast being used at range, it is limited.
 
Also, I would not rule that "does no damage" is not a limitation just because the attack is low dice, in the same way I would not increase the limitation because it was 20 dice. I most often invoke this rule when the limitation is not limiting either because another limitation effectively covers it or the context of the xampaign means it will never come up.
 
The corollary of this is rarely invoked in the forums that if an advantage is not advantageous it costs no points.  I often see advantages suggested that increase the costs of niche powers and might make it seem, to a newcomer, that the system is actively hostile to cool concepts.
 
I like the idea of this power, it would be cool in play and quite evocative.  There are obviously issues and wrinkles to iron out and, like many such discussions, it comes down to a finger in the air, testing on what a reasonable amount if points might be.  As a GM, I would be looking for reasons to allow it, working through, with the player, how they expect it to work in game.
 
As such, I would waive the need for a compound power.  I would allow the does KB on Healing versus undead. It would do the undead no damage, I would lean on the dice rolled on the healing roll to determine the knockback delivered. If anyone was concerned that the healing would heal the undead, I would apply a +0 limitation/advantage on the healing power "not versus undead". I think both the player and I would be on the same page as to what would happen in game, I would be content that the player was playing a reasonable amount of points and END for the additional applicability when there were undead involved.
 
Doc
 

Usually, when we set up a campaign in a game without narrative mechanics (We have used this method for different games) we first choose a theme, a short statement that guides the events in the story. Then each character is created with a fatal flow that suits the theme, the player chooses the fatal flow based on the challenge he wants to face while playing.
This helps to reduce the "arms race" feeling around the table while also easing the creation of good transformation arcs that help the story development.
 
If you want to play the best swordsman of all time by a huge margin, that’s fine, but you also have to answer the following question:
1) What is your goal (taking into account the campaign theme)?
2) How can you fail?
3) How will your temperament be tested?
4) What is the price of failure?
 
 
Obviously, this method is not a silver bullet that solves all the problems, it doesn't cover any possible kind of story and it isn't the only way to create a good story. Nevertheless, I think that is a small trick to help players communicate their desires for the game and to reflect on their character from a different point of view.
 

I think the working assumption here is that it means a strong EM field.  I caught a player with that limitation who blithely walked into a fight scene with a minor villain close to three mobile phone masts.  Each had an agent who was focussing the beam onto the combat scene.
 
He could not fly and his force field failed to come on. He was forced to rely on powers he rarely deployed and was suddenly grateful I had not allowed the limitation on his multi power.
 
Never again did he sail into combat without first assessing the risks, and his force field was soon "hardened" against EM interference.
 
Doc

I think the working assumption here is that it means a strong EM field.  I caught a player with that limitation who blithely walked into a fight scene with a minor villain close to three mobile phone masts.  Each had an agent who was focussing the beam onto the combat scene.
 
He could not fly and his force field failed to come on. He was forced to rely on powers he rarely deployed and was suddenly grateful I had not allowed the limitation on his multi power.
 
Never again did he sail into combat without first assessing the risks, and his force field was soon "hardened" against EM interference.
 
Doc

I think the working assumption here is that it means a strong EM field.  I caught a player with that limitation who blithely walked into a fight scene with a minor villain close to three mobile phone masts.  Each had an agent who was focussing the beam onto the combat scene.
 
He could not fly and his force field failed to come on. He was forced to rely on powers he rarely deployed and was suddenly grateful I had not allowed the limitation on his multi power.
 
Never again did he sail into combat without first assessing the risks, and his force field was soon "hardened" against EM interference.
 
Doc

I think the working assumption here is that it means a strong EM field.  I caught a player with that limitation who blithely walked into a fight scene with a minor villain close to three mobile phone masts.  Each had an agent who was focussing the beam onto the combat scene.
 
He could not fly and his force field failed to come on. He was forced to rely on powers he rarely deployed and was suddenly grateful I had not allowed the limitation on his multi power.
 
Never again did he sail into combat without first assessing the risks, and his force field was soon "hardened" against EM interference.
 
Doc

I am interested in the general play mechanics of ley lines.
 
So, if you are a wizard, you build your tower on strong, or a nexus of weak ley-lines that you tap for power. Or, do you avoid those because opponents have ready access to power sources if they attack you.
 
Are all ley lines the same, like electric cables?  Or do they have different "flavours" so that you might build on a stasis ley line with little evocation or illusion ley lines present?
 
I presume major lines are reasonably stable and predictable, like old telephone lines but outside that you might have more mobile phone like "patchy reception". 
 
Can all wizards "see" all ley lines or might they be blind to certain flavours?
 
During encounters, there may be some manoeuvring to get the best reception for your casters compared to the opposition.  How do you represent that in play and how do you adjudicate in a random encounter where little pre-planning was possible?
 
Are these the things you were thinking about?

I liked Sean's suggestion.  It is analogous to long term end loss.  The more big hits you take, the less able you are to take damage and longer healing requirement.
 
Not for supers but definitely in more heroic genres.
 
Doc

I liked the campaign that started with a newspaper running trash stories on the PC heroes causing them to investigate each other only to find that a local crime boss was feeding the newspaper with pictures and stories that were untrue. There were several set piece battles to confront the crime boss but the need to roleplay their way out of a difficult social situation.
 
The whole thrust of the campaign was to establish themselves as heroes rather than dangerous vigilante/probable villains.
 
Doc

Barrier in 6th Edition is much more than erecting a wall.  Indeed, the description says that "a barrier, once created, is a physical object that remains in existence until destroyed by attacks, the passage of time, or other factors".  it is an incredible tool to do a lot of things.  As such, my idea is to create a coherent body of water, you can enter that body of water as it has 0 PD, and swim thorugh it.  While in it you would be subject to the SFX of being inside a body of water (I might need to add an advantage because barrier, by default, allows the passage of gases etc).  You can configure the barrier to whatever shape you want - it also allows a certain amount of flexibility such as adpating to the surface (or fill a location). 
 
So, the barrier of water will stand free but once it takes enough damage, it will collapse into that much water and act just like a body of water that is no longer being held in place.  I think it is ideal to be used for this purpose.  It requires a slight handwave of SFX by allowing people to swi through it for no damage but the lack of utility as a barrier is more than made up for in other places.
 
Barrier is worth a good read - it is one of the powers that contributed to the expansion of pages but it adds a bch of utility that makes the reading worthwhile.
 
Doc

I have an internet connection, hence I am able to communicate on this forum. (I upgraded from soup cans and string some time ago, although I sometimes still use drums)

Set up a base i the bit that gives me pause.
 
Beyond that, it is the old Instant Change power (now a cosmetic transform) with a focus (probably IIF).
 
Doc

In my job it would be entirely impossible. 
 
I also cosume my news online and I play games with my friends online (both console and boardgames).  It means I still game with friends who are in Scotland while I am in London. 
 
I think the internet enhances my life, I read about games and gaming, I download books that I read offline when I am commuting, I check the availability of trains and buses online while on the commute and stay in touch with my team as we work hybridly.

Its amazing how easy it is to get by without the internet.  Do without it a few days and you barely even miss it.

And yet here you are on the Internet...

You could consider switching over to having EGO function as BODY for this sequence. OMCV and DMCV could replace OCV and DCV or alternately replace PD and ED for basic defense since it is all in the mind. It also gives a boost to these characteristics which are often under utilized in many campaigns. Just off the top of my head, but I am going to ponder it further.

I find myself with less sympathy for those pining for the days when "our thing" was special and pointed at and laughed at.  I think I am happier with more people who are comfortable with superhero and gaming references, not least the appearance of NPC as a concept in random social media conversations.  I think there is more stuff for me to cherry pick and live off than in the old days when everything was specialist, expensive or home-made.
 
Obviously there are the issues like complete canon and I take great pleasure in educating newbies in the tyrrany of continuity.  I have been there, pined for completeness and then come out the other side, looking for complete stories that can exist.  I love asking those saying that batman should kill the Joker whether they would be happy knowing there would never be another joker story?  Some are but the majority want more stuff to watch and read.  Joker's continued existence is purely by commercial demand, not from any inherent flaw in Batman's priniciples or society as a whole. 
 
I want lots of stories, I want good complex series.  I am content for those stories to be coherent within themselves and owe no continuity to previous stories or to limit future stories by what they reveal.  I guess that is why I drifted into almost exclusively reading old stuff and Elseworlds stories.
 
However, the more people there are involved and interested, the more people there are who are likely to create in this space and, even if 90% of that is dross, it is still likely to be more than I had growing up.
 

Doc