Doc Democracy

How is a Drain going to increase the END?
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary predicts cloudy with a chance of Drain

Give the Electrical Powers a Side Effect: Drain END, with a long recovery time.
That way the power costs END as normal then on top of that drains, say, 1d6 END that don't come back for five minutes, or an hour, or however long you and the Game Operations Director agree on.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary says a fire power may burn through END but what the electrical power does to END is shocking

Latest update: Hyperman is in the hospital, but out of ICU and recovering. He should be moving to physical therapy in the next day or two. He asked me to post pics of his latest HERO acquisitions.
 

I think conversion is difficult, especially so when the systems have, on the surface, so many similarities.  It is easy for assumptions to be made that things equate when they do not really.  It is almost easier when the systems are widely divergent and then how certain things are done can be explained.
 
When it comes to characters, I think it is often better to take a character from the original system, strip out every mechanical reference that you can, leaving a highly descriptive version of the character and then apply the new system using that description.  It is likely to surprise you how doing that makes better use of the new system than looking to go direct from system to system.
 
Doc

I think conversion is difficult, especially so when the systems have, on the surface, so many similarities.  It is easy for assumptions to be made that things equate when they do not really.  It is almost easier when the systems are widely divergent and then how certain things are done can be explained.
 
When it comes to characters, I think it is often better to take a character from the original system, strip out every mechanical reference that you can, leaving a highly descriptive version of the character and then apply the new system using that description.  It is likely to surprise you how doing that makes better use of the new system than looking to go direct from system to system.
 
Doc

I think conversion is difficult, especially so when the systems have, on the surface, so many similarities.  It is easy for assumptions to be made that things equate when they do not really.  It is almost easier when the systems are widely divergent and then how certain things are done can be explained.
 
When it comes to characters, I think it is often better to take a character from the original system, strip out every mechanical reference that you can, leaving a highly descriptive version of the character and then apply the new system using that description.  It is likely to surprise you how doing that makes better use of the new system than looking to go direct from system to system.
 
Doc

I think that comes into the GM style.  It almost has to be shown early on that if the players screw up (not usually the dice unless they are only being rolled due to bad decisions) then someone is likely to die.
 
When my players decide that they are going to embark on a headlong assault on a hard point that I have demonstrated by wasting countless NPC lives to be deadly, then they accept they are now in life or death dice rolling.  If one of them dies in this, I am pretty unsympathetic.
 
If they had sought another way round the hard-point, trying to think but it all goes wrong due to issues they had no way of knowing about, I am more likely to seek to transform death into capture or severe disadvantage (loss of equipment, disabling wounds etc).
 
It is almost impossible for the game to be both deadly and forgiving.  Gamers will game.  If the system has built in mechanisms to escape death, gamers will not keep them for special situations, they will consider them as part of the tactical landscape.  (I am not using gamers pejoratively here, just saying we are playing a game and players will often look to play optimally, even when making bad strategic decisions).
 
Doc

I think that comes into the GM style.  It almost has to be shown early on that if the players screw up (not usually the dice unless they are only being rolled due to bad decisions) then someone is likely to die.
 
When my players decide that they are going to embark on a headlong assault on a hard point that I have demonstrated by wasting countless NPC lives to be deadly, then they accept they are now in life or death dice rolling.  If one of them dies in this, I am pretty unsympathetic.
 
If they had sought another way round the hard-point, trying to think but it all goes wrong due to issues they had no way of knowing about, I am more likely to seek to transform death into capture or severe disadvantage (loss of equipment, disabling wounds etc).
 
It is almost impossible for the game to be both deadly and forgiving.  Gamers will game.  If the system has built in mechanisms to escape death, gamers will not keep them for special situations, they will consider them as part of the tactical landscape.  (I am not using gamers pejoratively here, just saying we are playing a game and players will often look to play optimally, even when making bad strategic decisions).
 
Doc

I think the hardest game to GM is a game where you want the illusion of it being deadly but not be. 

I am the big block to my group playing Cthulhu, I hate the genre with a passion(and more broadly to horror based games).  I would not stop the group playing but I will usually find an excuse not to participate when that kind of game is on the table.
 
I do however support disposable character style games (as long as we are up front about it).  In several games we played, including a dystopian superhero game, the idea was to work towards a satisfying death scene.  We had several excellent games that resulted in near TPKs where the dead characters players were happier than the ones that survived.  Champions, Pendragon, D6 Star Wars and Spacemaster all featured games where I grew and sacrificed a character in a most satisfactory way.  ?
 
Doc

When we played horror games, usually it was for a limited time.  Everybody knew that we would only have like 6 sessions or something, because Bob had finished running his game, and Mike wasn't quite ready to start yet.  Or Billy was going to get deployed overseas in a few months, and didn't want to start something long and involved.  Taking a break in the month of October to play a scary game was also a hit.  The idea of "normal guy versus the supernatural" has an appeal.  You just have to realize you're not Rambo.
 
For munchkin players, I found that giving them small scale stuff to fight keeps them happy for a little bit (you can kill a cultist, but the monster he summons flies away without seeing you).  The monsters should be established as clearly outside of their weight class, something that requires a special weapon or whatever to defeat.  1st level D&D characters don't charge dragons.  Even the most die-hard powergamer understands that.  In fact, I think the roll players (as opposed to role-players) are the ones most likely to react appropriately if they think the monster is too tough to kill.  Some Vampire the Masquerade player may love the idea of standing up to Cthulhu and delivering an impassioned soliloquy on how love conquers all.  A point-crunching munchkin is going to run like his ass is on fire as soon as he realizes the battle is hopeless.
 
But I didn't really put players in the situation where they were facing down hopeless odds.  Not in a combat situation anyway.  You find out that there are CHUDs living in the sewer below the city.  You fight one of them when it comes out for a stroll late at night.  It nearly kills you, but you manage to beat it to death with a lead pipe you grabbed in the alleyway.  You hear movement behind you, and when you turn, you see a dozen pairs of their creepy, glowing eyes coming out of the shadows.  You've lost a lot of Body and are barely standing as it is.  You have to run.  As long as the player chooses the clearly obvious action, he'll get away (they aren't interested in pursuing you, they're primarily interested in retrieving the body of their fellow creature).  But now he knows that he can't just slaughter his way through the things.
 
As far as playing doomed characters goes, it can be fun if you're in the right mindset.  The way I see it, in horror stories people usually have one terrifying experience and then it's over.  The sequels usually involve new people encountering the same monster.  It's rare for somebody to become an Ash, fighting the same things over and over again.  The character doesn't have to die by the end of the adventure, but you shouldn't expect them to keep coming back.  I found that leaving them "on the run" can be pretty enjoyable.  The players wonder what happens to them after the game ends.
 
I played in a game where I was a camp counselor.  Turns out the camp was a cover for a Dagon-esque cult.  I was supposed to be a sacrifice.  They already had a death certificate printed out for me and everything.  I found out a lot of the rich, old money families in the United States had traces of Deep Ones in their ancestry.  Sometimes, it manifests and one of the wealthy goes all fishy.  They get sent to live in the underground lake near the camp.  A lake with hundreds of half-fish men.  Most of the people who sent their kids to camp there were part of that elite group.  The movers and shakers of America.  So I found a list of names in the camp office, and jotted down as many as I could.  Names, addresses, etc.  I stole a bunch of money, set the place on fire, and ran.  I escaped the scenario successfully, but I still couldn't go home.  I was officially "dead" already.  A week later, someone ransacked my motel room when I went out for burgers.  The cult leaders at the camp were dead, but clearly there was somebody who figured out that one of the sacrifices had escaped.  So I had to keep moving.  The only way I could get my life back is to start picking off the people on my list.  They are out to take over the world.  I am going to be a hero.  If only they hadn't destroyed the list when they trashed my room.  But I'm pretty sure I remember who was on it.
 
We played that game like ten years ago, and I still wonder what happened to him.  From an outsider's perspective, he's absolutely insane.  He wants to kill all the fish people, the ones who secretly control the government?  Riiight.  From my own perspective, he's insane.  He's not even sure who was on the list anymore.  He's trying to do the right thing, but his perspective is skewed.  He's a half step from putting on a mask and murdering kids at some random summer camp.  At the very least, he's going to break into rich people's houses and shoot them as they sleep.  Maybe some of them will even be the right ones ("Swenson?  Swanson?  Oh, Samsonite, I was way off!").  Wondering about what became of him is way more fun than just saying that he went on to have a happy ending.

Some random thoughts:
 
As each Spell’s power will require investing in a separate skill, a spellcaster is likely to have a few spells that grow in power, not a lot of spells.
 
A high INT and skill levels don’t help me very much, since they will not enhance the power of my individual spells.
 
I have to buy a separate Knowledge skill for every type of magic I want to use, further constraining my spell choices.
 
The Math
 
A +1 to the roll will allow me 2 more real points, and 10 AP in the spell if I want the same chance of successfully casting it.
 
Our hypothetical Wizard buys a Fireball spell.  So what’s that?  Probably an RKA with an AoE at, say, +1/2.  He will have to limit that with Requires a Roll (-1/2).  He’ll likely also apply Gestures (-1/4) and Incantations (-1/4).  Will there be other common limitations to spells in your game (specific, or some general expectation of –x in limitations)?  Let’s assume no for now.
 
So he can have a 6 AP Fireball for the base skill level – that’s almost enough for one whole Damage Class!  Let’s assume he wants his Fireball to be a 1d6+1 KA (matching a Broadsword with no STR add).  That’s 30 AP and 15 RP, so he needs to invest 15 points in the skill, meaning +6 to the roll.  So he now has a 19- roll (13- base from 20 INT), which means he can successfully cast the spell on a 16-.
 
Absent huge limitations, it doesn’t seem like Wizards will fail at casting their spells very often, as they are forced to take a pretty high skill roll.  Maybe our Wizard needs an OAF Staff (or wand, or material component, or whatever) to cast his spell, so that makes total limitations -2.
 
Now his 30 AP Fireball is only 10 RP, and he could drop the skill to +4 and have a 17- (succeeding in its casting on a 14- roll, which seems OK – you don’t want the spells to fizzle as often as they function, after all).
 
Later, he can spend another 4 points to get that skill up to 19-, and bump the Fireball to 45 AP (2d6 KA), which will succeed on a 15- roll.
 
Assuming the expectation is -2 in Limitations, that seems OK.
 
Now, he also wants a Fire Shield to protect him from harm, so perhaps that is 6 PD, 6 ED Resistant Protection (similar to chain mail) which Costs END to Activate (-1/4), along with all those other limitations.  That’s 18 AP, and 6 RP, so he has to invest in +2 to the skill roll, or 15-, success on 13-.  Also feels OK.
 
Spell Research - Tweak
 
So we want Spell Research to tweak the spell. 
 
First off, what does “tweaking a fireball mean?  Can he vary the AoE, perhaps, so that 2d6 RKA, +1/2 AoE could become 2d6+1, +1/4 AoE, or a smaller Fireball that’s AoE 1 hex Accurate (+1/2, so still 2d6), or expand it to 1d6+1 with a +1.25 AoE?
 
Can he remove AoE entirely and make it a FireBolt?
 
Can he change it to a ball of cold, altering the SFX (maybe this requires adding the Variable SFX advantage, so it gets a little weaker, or a little smaller, or both)?
 
Could he make it a Line or Cone of Fire instead of a Sphere?
 
Maybe he can make it AP, or NND heatstroke instead of flames?
 
Could he change, or even remove, limitations (so he could drop that 2d6 Fireball to 1d6+1, and cast it with no Staff, or replace the Gestures and Incantations with Concentration, 0 DCV)?
 
It seems reasonable that the difficulty would vary based on the power of the spell (so total AP) and the extent of the changes (so perhaps every +1/4 change to advantages or limitations).  Maybe that’s -1 per 10 AP, and -1 for each 1/4 change to limitations or advantages – so if he wants to convert the Fireball to a FireBolt that has no OAF and swaps out Gestures & Incantations for Concentration, that’s -4 for 45 AP, -2 for changing +1/2 of advantages, -2 for swapping +1/2 of limitations and -4 for removing the OAF +1 limitation, for a total of -12 – fair enough, as he’s changed almost every element of the spell – only a truly expert wizard should be able to do so.
 
Should this come from Spell Research, or from the KS used to grant access to this spell school?  The latter would give wizards a reason to bump up that KS, and also mean one can be more versatile in some schools than others (also a further reason to specialize).  Maybe the KS or Spell Research is a complementary roll.
 
Spell Research – Create
 
First, we need to figure out the difference between tweak and creation.  Then we need to figure out how we want research to work when creating a brand-new spell.  Presumably, AP penalties apply, but why invent a high AP spell when you can invent it at low AP (with a 3 point skill), then just buy the skill roll up?  Maybe AP penalties don’t apply. 
 
A KS is likely also needed, in the appropriate school (perhaps a complementary skill).
 
Perhaps a penalty based on how far away this is from existing spells in the school (as this is a way to get out of buying multiple schools’ KS)?  A Fire Wizard seeking to create a Fire Bolt spell might have an easier time than one seeking to Teleport between fires.  This would clearly be pretty judgmental.
 
Research likely takes a long time.  Maybe the standard is 10 years (tweak for desired frequency of new spells in the game world), so if you want to reduce the time, you need a really good roll to succeed with the penalties for moving down the time chart.  Perhaps you need an expensive library, lab, components, etc., so loot becomes important.  Can assistants help you research?
 
This seems like the challenging one to nail down – first, you need to assess how common you want new spells to be, as that should guide the research rules.

There is a fantastic mechanic in FFG Star Wars called the destiny pool.
 
Instead of everyone having individual fate points or power points, there is a shared pool with a fixed number of points.  If it is set up with six points, three of them are dark, three of them are light.  At any time the players or GM can use a destiny point to improve a roll, add something to the story etc, just like most of these mechanics.  The twist is that when you use a destiny point as a player one of the White points turns black.  The GM can use them to alter dice rolls etc and that changes a dark point white but can also turn them over when the players achieve things, act heroically etc.
 
it is surprisingly effective especially when the GM constantly tempts you with what he will offer IF you want to spend a destiny point...the slow turn of white to dark actually ramps up the tension and there is a dynamic early in the game where the players are casual about using the points but really try to get it all or mostly white by the end, when things are heading to a climax.
 
Doc

Yes... Advantage Gained vs. Dramatic Challenge.  As a kind of hamfisted example... say, the player, when they get the advantage (adding extra dice to an attack, or guaranteeing a skill roll, whatever) the GM (or even better ,the play group as a whole) get a chit or something symbolizing "Drama!" which will force a challenging, dramatic shift when played. So... now, the PC, having just gotten the bonus to make a really difficult stealth role, sneaks into the base... GM asks, "Ok... any ideas on the drama challenge?" and one of the other players says, "I have an idea... how about this... we see PC Lad sneaking into the base, but cut scene, not far behind him, dressed in black with a look of determination on her face, is LL Smith, Roving Reporter and PC Lad's DNPC, who'd followed him up to Storm Mountain in the hopes of a big story! She follows PC Lad's path, and thinks she's made it when out of nowhere, a net falls on her followed by six ninjas! She's captured!"  
 
So now the PC's DNPC has been invoked, providing dramatic challenge, and it was a group decision and interaction that brought it into play, not just the GM "screwing with" the player. Suddenly the game becomes really fun and engaging storytelling. You'll get players debating whether it is good or necessary to risk further challenge for a benefit now. You can limit the number of times you can invoke the benefit, making it a special, powerful moment in the story, etc.
 
Sure, if you have min-max munchkins in the group where they only want to demonstrate rule mastery and that they are 'better' at the game than others... well, they aren't going to buy into this. But if people want story and drama and character development and such, this kind of thing can give a structure to pulling them out of the group imagination, rather than just hoping people are all on the same page and engaged.

I seem to recall at least one that, many years back, innovated a build system where taking psychological drawbacks allowed more points with which to purchase a character's abilities.  I wonder if they are still around
 
But I agree the only real answer is to find a game, and a group, which plays the way you like to play.  "Forcing" a non-role player to role play is no more fun than "forcing" a role player to run his character like a pawn on a board game.
 
 
Practically, if the players want to play a murderhobo video game, and you want to run a role playing game, you are not both going to enjoy the game. 

I do think horror is possibly the most difficult genre to get right.  The players do absolutely have to buy into the game, setting aside the knowledge they are in a horror story, setting aside any notions of fairness, understanding they will often lose Wendy as players as their characters react in ways that are less than optimal.
 
it is possibly the last one that causes most issues.  Most players I have encountered hate the idea that the character might limit the player in what actions might be taken, detest being captured and often feel that while they should be able to use intimidate to make NOCs cough up information, that an NPC should not be able to do the same to a PC.
 
Doc

I think that there is a case for some of these things allowing a base 11 or less chance as a skill that can be supplemented by combat levels or additional points in acting, whichever is lower...So someone highly skilled in swordfighting with some acting ability gets to use their acting ability and someone with good acting ability and some combat skills gets to use their combat skills...
 
:-)
 
I think I am less simulationist than many - my aim is to provide decent game mechanics to enhance the gameplay.  As such, I am less concerned what niche knowledge of things are and cater more to how most people think such things should work.  
 
It may be that a neophyte may not respond in the way someone properly trained would but I think that a highly skilled opponent would be able to quickly read an unskilled, but naturally talented opponent and be able to lead them into poor choices of attack.  That to me is what feint is all about, leading your opponent into making sub-optimal choices that opens them up to attacks or making them easier to defeat.
 
There are a number of ways you might do this, with varying degrees of impact on gameplay...
 
 
Doc

so yes I borrowed from Pizza Man's idea of a haunted character
I had fun building her as a change enviroment
this is a fleshed out version of the whole character
I kinda went with a mashup of Harry Dresden and John Constantine
as both are haunted by their pasts
comments are welcome

I present

Haunted    aka   John Dresden
Haunted
 
Val Char Cost Roll Notes
15 STR 5 12- Lift 200.0kg; 3d6 [1]
18 DEX 16 13- OCV: 8/DCV: 8
25 CON 15 14-
23 INT 13 14- PER Roll 14-
23 EGO 13 14- ECV: 3 - 3
20+60 PRE 10 13- / 25- PRE Attack: 4d6/16d6
 
8 OCV 25
8 DCV 25
3 OMCV 0
3 DMCV 0
4 SPD 20 Phases: 3, 6, 9, 12
 
2+28 PD 0 Total: 2/30 PD (0/15 rPD)
2+28 ED 0 Total: 2/30 ED (0/15 rED)
10 REC 6
20 END 0
15 BODY 5
45 STUN 13 Total Characteristic Cost: 166
 
Movement: Running: 12m/24m
Leaping: 4m/8m
Swimming: 4m/8m
Teleportation: 10m/20m
 
Cost Powers END
24 Haunting :My girlfriend the ghost: Multipower, 60-point reserve, all slots Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½) (90 Active Points); all slots No Conscious Control (-2), No Range (-½), Conditional Power Power does not work in Uncommon Circumstances (Hallowed grounds; -¼)
2f 1) My girlfriend is bansihde keening your death: Change Environment (-5 to Characteristic Roll or Skill Roll, Long-Lasting 1 Turn, Stunning), Area Of Effect (16m Cone; +½), Thin Cone (-¼) (59 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses less than a fourth of its effectiveness (Vs Pre not Con; -0) 0
1f 2) My girlfriend the ghost is breath taking: Change Environment (+2 Wind Levels, -2 Temperature Level Adjustment, Long-Lasting 1 Turn, Suffocation), Area Of Effect (16m Cone; +½) (57 Active Points) 0
2f 3) My girlfriend the ghost talks with her ghost friends: Retrocognitive Clairsentience (Hearing And Sight Groups), Telescopic: +20 (60 Active Points) 0
2f 4) My girlfriend the poltergeist: Change Environment (+1 Points of Damage, +1 Wind Levels, +3 Points of Telekinetic STR, -1 Temperature Level Adjustment, Long-Lasting 1 Turn), Area Of Effect (32m Radius; +1) (60 Active Points) 0
1f 5) My girlfriend the ghost says lights out: Darkness to Sight Group 9m radius, Personal Immunity (+¼) (56 Active Points) 0
 
14 +4 SPD (40 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about two-thirds of its effectiveness (Only for ghost girlfriend's actions; -1 ½), Conditional Power Power does not work in Uncommon Circumstances (Not on hollowed ground; -¼)
2 Teleportation: Fixed Location (2 Locations) 0
Notes: His Base and team base
 
97 Variable Magic Power Pool, 60 base + 60 control cost, Powers Can Be Changed As A Half-Phase Action (+½), No Skill Roll Required (+1) (135 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-½), Incantations (Complex; -½)
0 1) Soulfire blast: Blast 5d6, STUN Only (+0), Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +¼), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (Power Defense; All Or Nothing; +1) (56 Active Points) Real Cost: 28 6
0 2) Napalm for the soul: Blast 3d6+1, STUN Only (+0), Area Of Effect (16m Cone; +½), Thin Cone (-¼), Reduced Endurance (½ END; +¼), Constant (+½), Uncontrolled (+½), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (ED; All Or Nothing; +1) (59 Active Points) Real Cost: 29 2
0 3) Hell fire: RKA 2d6, Area Of Effect (16m Cone; +½), Thin Cone (-¼), +1 Increased STUN Multiplier (+¼), Penetrating (+½) (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 30 6
0 4) Stinging hellfire: RKA 2d6, Area Of Effect (16m Cone; +½), Thin Cone (-¼), +3 Increased STUN Multiplier (+¾) (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 30 6
0 5) Undead banisment: +60 PRE (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 30
0 6) quick healing: Healing BODY 2d6, Characteristics (+½), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 ½) (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 30 6
0 7) Major trama healing: Healing BODY 6d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 30 6
0 ? Teleportation 10m, x4 Increased Mass, MegaScale (1m = 10,000 km; +2) (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 30 6
 
Morning magical rituals, all slots Concentration (0 DCV; Character is totally unaware of nearby events; -¾), Gestures (Requires both hands; Complex; -¾), Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), Only to Activate, Character May Take No Other Actions, -¾)
8 1) invisible aura of protection: (Total: 26 Active Cost, 8 Real Cost) +13 PD (Real Cost: 13) plus +13 ED (Real Cost: 13) 0
9 2) Combat Luck (15 PD/15 ED) (30 Active Points)
16 3) Communications with my dead girlfriend the ghost: Danger Sense (general area, any danger, Discriminatory, Function as a Sense, Targeting Sense) (52 Active Points) 14-
 
Perks
5 always knows which horse to pick: Money: Well Off
3 Anonymity
10 Vehicles & Bases
 
Skills
3 Acting 13- (25-)
3 Bribery 13- (25-)
3 Bureaucratics 13- (25-)
3 Conversation 13- (25-)
3 Criminology 14-
3 Inventor 14-
3 Navigation (Dimensional, Land) 14-
5 PS: Mage: all in practioner of the dark arts 14-
3 Persuasion 13- (25-)
3 Security Systems 14-
3 Stealth 13-
3 Streetwise 13- (25-)
 
Total Powers & Skill Cost: 235
Total Cost: 400
 
400+ Matching Complications
15 Hunted: Demons,dark gods,elder things and really ancient somethings Infrequently (Mo Pow; Harshly Punish)
15 Psychological Complication: Smart mouth (Common; Strong)
5 Susceptibility: Holy relics 1d6 damage Instant (Uncommon)
15 Psychological Complication: Hates being ordered around (Common; Strong)
20 Psychological Complication: Protective of normals (Very Common; Strong)
5 Rivalry: Professional (other mages; Rival is As Powerful; Seek to Outdo, Embarrass, or Humiliate Rival; Rival Aware of Rivalry)
 
Total Complications Points: 400
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

Here's my $0.02.  Take it for what its worth, $0.02.
 
Instead of an OCV bonus based on sleight of hand, how about PRE based on sleight of hand?
 
10 +25 PRE attack only -1, requires a sleight of hand roll -1/2 *
* you might add more limitations such as concentration, instant, etc.  Instant because the effect is only for the sleight of hand user.
 
So, it would work like this, your character would try the feint and roll the sleight of hand roll at -2.  If successful, then the character does their presence attack against the target of the feint.
If the roll fails to reach the target's PRE, the target acts as normal. If the roll matches target's PRE, even if the target has a delayed action, the target has hesitated enough so that they can only abort their next action in response following all the rules for an abort.  They must keep all levels as assigned before the feint but can abort to reassign the levels. If the roll matches target's PRE+10, the target can not abort their next action in response and lose any held action.  They must keep all levels as assigned before the feint. If the roll matches target's PRE+20, the target can not abort their next action in response and lose any held action.  They must keep all levels as assigned before the feint.  Furthermore, they are at 1/2 DCV. If the roll matches target's PRE+30, the target can not abort their next action in response and lose any held action.  They must keep all levels as assigned before the feint.  Furthermore, they are at 0 DCV.  
 
 

It could be looked at with that in mind.  If someone is good enough to feint, it encourages their opponent to do exactly the wrong thing.  It is possible to write that in HERO in a number of ways.  You can presume that the feint is successful and simply give the attacker additional OCV, damage or both or you can have the OCV and/or damage be dependent on an additional roll.  
 
I think the problem, as described, is that, if the target knows that his opponent's OCV is raised on the next action, then they may be entirely able to negate that advantage by dodging (aborting to that dodge if necessary).  If you had properly been feinted then you would not be thinking of dodging, you would be committed to whatever action your opponent fooled you into pursuing.  There is the potential for the GM managing this but that has the potential for a lot of arguing that "I was going to do that anyway"...
 
I think that, instead of providing a bonus to damage or OCV, the person who succeeds in a feint should be able to dictate what his opponent's next manouevre should be. Before committing to that manouevre on their next action, the target should get a chance to see the trap (some kind of INT versus feint roll) as a last chance of not doing what the opponent wants you to do.  I do not think it should be easy to feint but if you do, it should not be easy to spot the trap set for you.
 
Doc

So, if I am getting this right, your character is suddenly going to start finding it more tiring to alter the uses he puts his claws to.  He will now need to put some effort into switching from rend and tear to draining mystical defences but the use of the powers will remain unchanged.
 
you will be proposing this to your GM as a way of reducing the cost of the multipower to free up points to spend elsewhere.  Is that right?
 
As GM, I think I would look carefully at how your END expenditure has been.  Are you often close to 0 END and so this limitation would cause you difficulties?  If not, you might be sending a message that this is something that needs to be brought into the game.  If you are getting points for it, the GM is invited to make it an issue and problematic.  This is especially the case when revising a character rather than building from scratch, or at least I know as a GM I am more aware and alert to such things than right at the start when everyone is in design mode.
 
Doc

I guess I will bow out.  I think that it is a mistake to tinker round the edges without considering the broader picture.  I dont think that normal versus killing damage is equivalent to lethal versus non-lethal.
 
I would actually prefer to break the whole thing down to examine how to tailor attacks to manage STUN versus BODY damage which really would map to lethal versus non-lethal.
 
Anyway.  Good luck.

I think the first question to ask is not the dice mechanism but what role you want killing attacks to accomplish.  What is their role mechanically?
 
I think the original role was to cause BODY damage, possibly more focussed on inanimate objects like walls and robots than people, though the name does not imply this...
 
 I am not sure there is a need for an attack that kills more easily, that inflicts increased amounts of BODY damage to characters as an inherent ability, such things can be accomplished by other means.
 
Your suggestion accepts the need for a killing attack but I question even that.  Should we have a more efficient way of inflicting BODY, possibly for busting people out if jails and entangles?  Very possibly, but could that be through applying advantages or manoeuvres to existing damage? I think so.
 
I will apply myself to your question but I ask you to take a step back and ask yourself whether you actually need a killing attack at all?
 
Doc

I have neglected this for a while - combination of work and home distractions (not all terrible ones).  However, I note that there are now 24 people who have access, that is a reasonable amount of people online on Roll20 who are interested in HERO.  It should be easy for folk to start playing games there if they want to and chatting about them here! :-)
 
Doc

Wait, Australia wants to ship undesirable people off to another land mass? Criminals, perhaps? Do they see the irony?