Derek Hiemforth

I would probably build something around Cramming (using the Optional Expanded Cramming rules from Hero System Skills, page 145), and something like Speed Reading, or Overall Skill Levels to reduce the time it takes to Cram.

I was less clear than I should have been when I said I wouldn't allow Haymaker against a physical entangle either. Yes, Sapphire can use her Power Bolt 1, and yes, she can Haymaker it. What I'm saying I wouldn't generally allow (as a GM; other GMs may see it differently) is Haymakering a normal escape attempt, where the entangled character applies their STR (or EGO, in the case of a mental entangle) to try and break the entangle from the inside. If the character's powers and SFX allow them another way to attack, and it seems reasonable to use that attack while entangled (such as your example with Sapphire and her Power Bolt I), then it may very well also be reasonable for them to Haymaker that attack. I'm thinking more of a situation where Arrowhead (CC page 202) hits Green Dragon (CC page 205) with his Glue Arrow Entangle. Green Dragon can't use his Martial Arts maneuvers to attack the entangle because they require him to move. He might be able to use the Escape maneuver against other SFX of entangles, but it doesn't make any sense for it to work against glue. Pretty much all Green Dragon can do is use his 25 STR to break free. Against Arrowhead's 4DEF, 4d6 Entangle, he'll probably be able to get out eventually, but it may take a while. This doesn't strike me (pun intended) as a situation where Green Dragon can "Haymaker" exerting his STR. Any extra effort he might bear down and put into giving it everything he's got sounds more to me like a Push than a Haymaker. Again, though... it's often about SFX. Change the circumstances slightly, and give me a good rationale, and I might allow it.

Agreed, and to be clear, when I posted above about paying CP for your iPhone, I was joking. Regardless of what the rules say, I completely agree that we're now at a point where smartphones are so pervasive that paying CP to carry them would feel like paying CP for clothing or food or something...

Nice! 👍 Might need a bigger MP reserve, though. Technically, you can maintain that phone call (Mind Link) while also having the light on, using the navigation and translator apps, etc.

I dunno... having been in that position myself before, I sort of think you might have a car, but if you do, the awful car you'll have will add at least as much financial burden to your Destitute state (car insurance, vehicle registration, constant repairs, terrible gas mileage, etc.) as it provides any kind of help. Without enough money to maintain it, having a car is almost more of a curse than a blessing... Totally agreed, though, that you shouldn't have a good car...

Damage Over Time is included in "Advantages That Directly Affect Damage" (6E2 pg. 98), unless the GM rules it isn't for some reason. The Damage Over Time also needs to include the Target's Defenses Only Apply Once modifier because it's an AVAD (NND) attack (per the 6E rules FAQ). The total of "Advantages That Directly Affect Damage" is therefore +3½ instead of +2½ (or +½). The Power's Active Point cost counting only those Advantages would be 67, so each added DC translates at a rate of 22½ per 1d6 on the Damage Class Table (6E2 pg. 97) So the +3 DC from the martial maneuver translates to +½d6 being added. Because a Damage Over Time attack is "fire and forget," (it requires no maintenance on the attacker's part, the END cost is paid when it is fired, etc.), the amount of damage it inflicts in each increment is also determined when it is initially used. Therefore, the damage in the initial Segment would be 3½d6, and the damage in the following Segments would also be 3½d6. Now, having said all that, I think I should also point out that this construction combines several "Caution Sign" and "GM's Permission" elements, and ends up with the character getting +1 OCV or +2 RNG, plus 11½ CP worth of added Damage Classes if they were bought separately, all for the low, low price of 4 CP for the martial maneuver. So this build definitely seems worthy of some close GM scrutiny.

It's equal the AP of the largest power divided by 5. So having a bunch of powers in the Focus doesn't matter. Well, except that for each BODY damage a Focus takes, it loses a Power. So if it only has one, one BODY will break it, while multiple will let it lose Powers while other Powers still work. 'Course, a Power Framework counts as one Power for this purpose, so it doesn't help much...

Though your idea sounds a bit darker in execution, I ran a game that was sort of similar to this in spirit. It was kind of a blend of The X-Files (find the truth) and Men in Black (conceal the truth), but for monsters and magic instead of aliens, and run by occult secret societies instead of government-sponsored agencies.

Remember, kids: in Superheroic campaigns, you have to pay CP for anything you want to have routinely! Make sure to work out the CP cost of that iPhone! (Maybe the innate Senses would be cheaper...).

I wouldn't allow Haymaker against a physical Entangle either. I don't think an escape attempt is a type of Strike maneuver; I think it's an application of STR (or EGO, in the case of a mental Entangle). Again, the right SFX might sway me, but in general, in my brain, I think most reasons someone might say they should be able to Haymaker are actually just rationales for why it makes sense for them to Push their STR/EGO.

Most books don't have the Hero logo on the front cover. (CC and FHC don't, for example; nor do Ghosts, Ghouls, and Goblins, Golden Age Champions, Larger Than Life, Strike Force, etc.)

I got the POD from DriveThruRPG, so if Hero did a print run, then that's not the one i got. The extra pages were all at the end, so they couldn't have thrown off the TOC.

Mine is 270 pages (counting a trio of blank pages at the end). Softcover is still fine... just wondering if I got an unusual copy or something

My answer as an opinion on the rules as written is that I think it's a GM call depending on the SFX involved. If I were the GM, I would generally rule that you could not Haymaker an escape attempt, on the grounds that Haymaker is a maneuver of its own that you don't combine with another (except Strike; 6E2 pg. 69 or CC pg. 150). Although escaping from an Entangle is not specifically a maneuver per se, it feels similar enough that it seems odd to me to Haymaker an escape attempt. However, you might be able to convince me with a good enough rationale!

The same day I received my hardcopy book in the mail. 😆

I would also add to all of the true advice above that -- if there really isn't any kind of restriction in a particular campaign on what magic can do or what SFX it can create -- then "Only Magic" probably wouldn't be worth a -¼ Limitation in that campaign.

I gotcha. However, I do think you're going to find you'll need at least some information about how to make characters that fit those adventures, and about the world those adventures take place in, etc.

My initial instinct was a Retro 80s/Bronze Age Champions game, but then I realized... that's what the original Champions material essentially was, so Champions has kind of covered that ground already. Then I realized that was true of most of the options; most of them have been covered already by some Hero System setting, at least to some extent (even the school angle was already covered -- from a slightly different angle -- by PS238). The only ones I don't think have really been covered much in other Hero System material are Street Level/Cops/low-powered supers, Pirates, and Bronze age fantasy. Out of those, I don't have any interest in the street level/cops setting, and the bronze age fantasy seems like it would cross over a lot with The Valdorian Age and S&S. So of the list, I voted for Pirates. Overall though, I'm not especially interested in Pirates, really. What I'd really like to see is one where the characters in the setting (PC and NPC alike) come from a mix of genres. Like a "crossroads of time and space" kind of deal, where starships might fight dinosaurs, and fantasy wizards might meet superhero scientists, and old west gunslingers might rescue fairy princesses, or whatever. I think this kind of cross-genre setting would really allow the Hero System to shine, and would be uniquely suited to it. The Stranger Things/Kids on Bikes idea is actually more appealing to me than the "School for Gifted Students/low-end supers" angle. 👍

Geez, that's practically a Chuck Norris story... 😲

Thanks, Ninja-Bear!

My favorite kind of "silly" adventure (which will come as no surprise to anyone who's heard of my Challenge of the Superfriends games or read Digital Hero #11) is the very earnest, cartoonishly-flavored game. The only things about the adventures themselves that seem very silly are the villains' goals (which are typically ridiculously grandiose, like stealing the moon or something). The characters in-world take it all quite seriously. And that's the gag. The characters are very earnest and sincere, but the players are laughing at the absurdity of it all. Playing it straight is much more fun, in my experience, than actually trying to be silly.

I agree, honestly. Just keep the rule that Gliding move = ½ Flight move across the board. Then, if you want to make a character who can Glide faster than that, they can buy some extra Flight "only to glide." To me, that feels more in keeping with the core concept of You Get What You Pay For. EDIT: In fairness, though, I will say that I'm sure the way it currently works is just due to the fact that two Powers were being folded into one, and doing it this way kept their costs and functions (mostly) unchanged.

Unless I misunderstand what you're saying, this is already how Flight works. For example, from CC page 69: "Any character with Flight can also Glide as follows..." And the Gliding Limitation says: "Allows a character to Glide at their full Combat Movement meters of Flight instead of only half, but restricts the power’s use to Gliding only."

I don't at the moment, but I have. I caution against conflating starting point totals with power levels too much. (For instance, the thread title is about CP, but the first point talks about GMs liking "low powered" games.) Of course, there's not exactly a direct connection between point totals and power level. Yes, you need more points for a higher-powered game, but you can certainly have a game that is lower-powered despite having more points. Personally, I like that sort of game, especially for groups with fewer characters. More points/moderate power levels enables characters who are well-detailed or broad, without making them world-beaters...

(added emphasis mine) In your examples, the mage is also using "gadgets;" they're just gadgets with magical SFX instead of technological. I agree with LL that I don't necessarily buy the premise that GMs generally don't like Power Frameworks; I think it depends on the GM, and maybe even more so on the player using the Power Framework and the speed and ease with which the VPP can changed. However, in my experience, when I have seen what you describe, it's typically because a gadget-based VPP is a bit easier for the GM to plan around, often because it takes at least a bit of time to change. The VPPs that give some GMs heartburn are the ones that can be whatever whenever, as LL notes. Those tend to magic spells, not gadgets. I've never encountered a GM who would frown on a VPP of a wizard's magic items, but be fine with a VPP of technological gadgets, for example.