LoneWolf

If it is an item creating false tracks change environment is probably the best way to go.  If you just want to obscure the tracks you could allow someone with the tracking skill to cover the tracks using an opposed skill.  Basically the person trying to cover the tracks makes a tracking roll, the person trying to follow the tracks takes a penalty on his roll equal to how much the first person made the roll by.  With a minimum of a -1 penalty if the first person makes his roll.

I prefer to use the alternate luck options out of the advanced players guide instead of the standard luck.  Specifically, the one where you roll your luck dice and count the BODY and get to reroll a number of times during the session equal to the BODY you rolled.     By being fairly selective on what is rerolled you can be really effective.  Since you have to roll better saving it for when you almost made it makes it really reliable.  I have used that on several characters in both Champions and Fantasy Hero.

The Champion's character was a precog, so the special effect of the luck was not actual luck.  He saw the future and would change something in the past when he wanted to change the outcome.  He had enough luck that he could affect others. From a game mechanic point I would decide I wanted to use one of my rerolls and the roll would be rerolled.  In game I would give a warning or change something before the event happened without getting into too much detail of what I changed.  It might have been a cryptic warning before the event happened.  It could be something like a warning for another character to check their gun earlier in the day when I wanted a reroll on a failed burnout roll.  

For a luck-based character buy some luck using these rules, but use the activation roll instead of requires luck for the other powers.   This will get you a really effective character that is actually lucky.  Buy a few overall levels as well with the special effect of luck.  They don’t get any limitation and work like overall levels, but you can get fairly creative is the actual reason you succeed. When a character misses you because you put the overall level to DCV they slipped on a banana peel just enough miss hitting you.   
 

How many dice of luck do you have?  The more dice of luck you have the less of a limitation it will be.

You also might want to reconsider this.  Luck is most often used when a character is at a disadvantage or in a bad situation. In earlier versions of the game, it specifically stated to only use it when the character is having a hard time.  The general rule was rolling luck when the player was having bad luck, and unluck when he was having good luck.  

Personally, I would use a normal activation roll instead of a luck roll.  This would give you more control over when it activates.  This would allow the character to be lucky more consistently. The idea of having power based on the level of luck seems like a good idea, but in reality, it makes for a very unreliable character.  If your concept is the character alters probability in his favor so always seems to be lucky the activation roll is going to work better.   If the concept is weird stuff happens around the character the luck level could work. 
 

One thing I would bring up is that some limitations are not really limitations they are simply special effects.  The whole idea that a power is limited by the mind of its user in not a limitation it is a special effect.  The GL rings are a good example of this.  The ring may be limited only by the imagination of the user, but that is not a limitation that is a special effect of how the ring works. In the hero system you pay for what you can use in the game.  If you have a power that has is theoretically has infinite power, you still only have to pay for what you can use.  Different characters may pay different price for the same power, because the game mechanics are different. For example, two different green lanterns may pay different prices for their ring.  The ring may be physically the same, but because one can use it better, he pays more for it. 

The value of the limitation is based on the character purchasing the power.  So, if the limitation does not limit the character purchasing the power it is considered a -0 limitation.  Prior to 6th edition this might be an acceptable limitation on a VPP with the GM’s permission assuming the limitation would actually restrict what the VPP could have in it.  

Limitations on how you spend your XP should never be allowed.  If this is allowed any power or stat the character does not intend to buy up will have a limitation on it.  Do you really want characters putting a -1/2 limitation most of their abilities?  
 

This is something I would be very hesitant to allow.  I could see allowing it on a VPP or a multipower, but only if the pool was significantly higher in points then the cap.  If the character can use the full point of the pool it would not really limit them.  If I have a 60 point pool and can only use 60 points that is not limiting me in any way.  For a -1/2 limitation the character should be limited to using no more than 2/3 of the pool, a -1/4 would allow you to use about ¾ of the pool.  Anything more would be a -0 limitation.  Allowing it on anything else should not be allowed. 

The way the groups I play with handle that is for everyone to limit their stats especially DEX and SPD.  Our normal SPD is 4.  A few characters like martial artists may have a 5, speedsters usually have 6.   Some characters like bricks may even have a 3 SPD.   Most agents are 3 SPD.  We also reduce the SPD of any published characters.  We warn people when they join a campaign.  It actually works really well in keeping combat moving and character functioning.  The lower SPD also reduces the need for END.

If too many people boost their SPD, it will trigger a SPD increase for all NPC’s.  When the players know that they cannot win the SPD war most of them don’t even bother trying to fight it.  We occasionally need to warn new players of this, but they usually come to understand it is in everyone’s best interest to keep the stats reasonable.  
 

With a flying tackle you are crashing into to someone and knocking them down with your own body.  When you do this you should also be taking damage.  This is closer to a move through than a throw and the character doing it should be taking damage from it.   A character performing an untrained flying tackle should take the same damage as if they performed a move through.   When you purchase it as a martial maneuver part of what you are paying for is to be able to do it without injuring yourself.  

The combination of self-contained breathing and impermeable works for what the OP wanted, but there are still some things it would not work on.  For Example, the blood of the Aliens in the movies eats through the deck of the ship.  Impermeable is not going to work that well vs something that can destroy the armor itself.  VS things like NND’s drains and most of the oddball attacks it should work, but depending on special effect some things will not be stopped.  

Self-contained breathing takes care of the gasses.   Impermeable will cover most of the other but may not be total.   It works fine vs low grade threats that have to contact your skin but will not work vs everything.  For example, if it may not protect vs an acid attack strong enough to eat through things.   

Before 4th edition there martial arts for the most part simply multiplied damage and did not have maneuvers that did unusual things.   So these maneuvers were added to allow them to do things that could not otherwise be done. 

Someone wanting to kick for more damage should simply use the haymaker maneuver.  The old kick multiplying the damage can quickly get out of hand especially in a champions game.  As you said you can already do everything the hold does with the grab maneuver.

Standard maneuvers are something that everyone is supposed to be able to do.  Not every high school bully knows how to hit so that it causes broken bones or internal injuries. Killing blow is and should be a martial maneuver.

The flying tackle also gives more than a standard maneuver should give.  I would treat this as a move through and trip.  Basically, I would waive the rule you cannot combine maneuvers in a combined attack for this specific maneuver.   
 

The way Hero Designer works is you need to load the prefabs for the files you purchased.  They show up in a separate prefab subtab.   You can then select those abilities from the prefab tab without having to build them. Depending on how many files the package is split up into this may mean you need to load quite of few of them to get everything. 

When I first got the software, I purchased some of the packages, but found this to be very cumbersome and had some performance issues when too many prefabs were loaded.   I did try and load all the ones I purchased and due to the memory restrictions in the program it was taking causing issues.  I ended up unloading all of them and have not bothered with any packages since.    The base software actually works really well, but the add ones are in my opinion more trouble than they are worth.   
 

DEX does not mean you go first, it means you get to choose when you go.  Pay attention to holding actions and aborting. Going last on a phase and aborting the next to a defensive maneuver is incredibly effective.

Block few, dodge many.   
 

If the only complications the entire team has are hunteds that is probably going to be a problem.  That would certainly lead to the problem the OP is asking about.  A well rounded character should have a variety of complications, not just hunteds.  A team should have something to tie it together and a common hunted is as good as anything else.
  

Often when I am running will have the players take an unknown hunted at the beginning of the campaign representing the major villain of the campaign.  The idea that if a complication/disadvantage has no effect does not count cuts both ways.  If the character is going to suffer the negative effects of something it should count.   So, if I don’t allow a hunted for a character because the hunted does not exist in my campaign, I should give the character credit for the hunted I am going to impose because of the campaign.    
 

Assault has a good point on working hunteds into the story.  If the GM is going to have a particular group show up a lot, he might want to encourage or even require all characters in the campaign to take that group as a hunted.  Many campaigns I have been in almost all the characters have Viper as a hunted.  Other campaigns often have other groups, but there is usually a lot of shared hunteds.

For some characters buying a DNPC pool works better than defined DNPCs.  Instead of writing up specific characters the player defines a fairly broad group of characters that will get involved.  This could be anything from the girlfriend of the week to random friends.  Have the character define a number of points for the complication/disadvantage and the GM decides on the details.  One week the DNPC could be an old military buddy, the next week it could be your teenage niece. One thing to keep in mind about DNPCs is they are supposed to create more trouble than they are worth.  So, the competent DNPC is usually going to get into some really dangerous situations.  If the DNPC is providing more help than hindrances, they are not DNPC’s, and the character should be buying them as followers.

Followers are the NPC most likely to cause problems. The way I handle followers is that their screen time is taken from the character that purchased them.  If you have a lot of competent followers your only screen time may be giving orders.  
 

For me it is going to be a matter of special effect and the type of campaign.  For example, I would allow a Jedi in a Star Wars campaign to use a martial maneuver from a lightsaber based martial art with missile deflection.  I would not allow the boxer in a James Bond inspired Danger International campaign to use his Boxing Block to deflect bullets.  In most Champions games it will probably be ok, but will again depend on the special effect of both the maneuver and the missile deflection.  If the missile deflection is bought with a focus (weapon) the martial art will need to have that as a weapon element.  

That is amazing.

DNPC’s and Hunteds are usually used as plot devices by the GM and are not under the players control.  Unless the DNPC’s are combat worthy they should not be an issue.  Contact for the most part will also not be involved in combat.  So the only real concern is going to be followers.  Those should always be carefully scrutinized by the GM.   

The other thing to consider is how often they become involved in the game.  If all the complication based NPCS show up too often it can be a problem.  If they are only occasionally showing up it will not be a problem.

Running the night everyone showed up can be fun as long as it does not happen too often.   
 

You don’t need mega scale for terminal velocity.  If you have 120M leap you can handle a terminal velocity fall.   Since you start with 4M of leap that means you only need 116m.  Apply the limitation upward only (-1) and only to counter falling (-1).  This works out to 19 points.  It will cost you 6 END.  

Reducing the SPD on all characters actually works out really well.  Not only does it save points it make thing like END usage more manageable. This ends up saving even more points because it reduces the need for things like ½ END and buy up your recovery.   It also means the average character is not running faster than Usain Bolt.     

There is also the optional rule that allows you to use your leap to reduce the damage from a fall.  It requires a held action and allows you to subtract your vertical combat leap from the velocity of the fall.  You also get your normal defenses from the damage of a fall.  From what I remember of the movie the vampires were able to make leaps of a decent height.  

I would not have any problems allowing a character to use his leap to negate part of the velocity of a fall using his defenses to absorb the remaining damage and allow a breakfall roll to stand as a zero-phase action with the special effect of them simply not falling down to begin with.  

Leaping normally costs 1 for 2M, but your upward leap is half.  The book gives the limitation upward only as a -1 limitation.  Adding in only for falling damage as an additional -1 limitation seems reasonable. That would make it 19 points to be able to ignore a terminal velocity fall.   
 

A formula that determines the initial points and complications from the average DC is going to be of very little use.  All it does is scale up and down points based on the assumption all campaigns are basically the same.  

The problem with a formula like this is that by its nature Hero System can have very different point spread depending on the nature of the campaign.  You can have a campaign where it is mostly combat so skills do not matter that much, but you can also have a campaign where there is more focus on out of combat abilities including skills.  I have played in plenty of games where it is mostly focused on combat, but I have also played in a lot of games that focus on investigation or other non-combat issues.  Sometimes even on a game focused on combat the GM may want to keep the damage at lower level.  

A better approach would be to figure out what type of combat you want in your game before doing anything.  Do you want normal weapons to be a threat to the PCs, or do they bounce bullets of their chest?  This will give you an idea of what range of DC you should have in the game.  The next step is to figure out how lethal combat should be and set the guidelines for defenses as appropriate.   Do the same for the aspects of the game including how much out of combat focus there will be.  That will give you an idea of how many points to give the players to build their character.  Then simply use the chart in the book as a base and maybe adjust it a little.  It is a lot of work for the GM as they need to figure out what they want to run before the players start building, but it leads to a better game.  
 

Deadly blow has its uses, but like anything can be abused.   Besides a thief’s backstab it can also be used for a paladin’s smite evil.   I allow it in a heroic game but usually limit it to a single die.

I am not sure what you are looking to accomplish.  The guidelines are only there for two purposes.  The first is so set the amount of points a character gets to build his character.   The second is to give the GM a rough idea on how to build appropriate NPC’s.  The second thing is just as important as the first.  Most campaigns will have characters from multiple types, especially the one lower on the scale.   

Since complications no longer give you points like disadvantages did under older rules, the only real purpose they serve is to ensure a character has some background.  Piling too many complications on a low point character often make them weaker than they should be, so it makes since to limit those on lower point characters.  On the other hand, often the only way to deal with high powered character is through their complications.  The maximum point per complication is to ensure that high point characters don’t put all their eggs in one basket.   

The most important part of the guidelines is actually on page 33.  Specifically, the part that says Talk to the GM and learn about the nature and scope of the campaign.  
 

Since TK can be used at range I don’t think using the HTH rules are appropriate.  They should be built using the rules for a ranged martial art.  That means you HTH DC do not apply to maneuvers designed for use with TK.      

For the set amount you could round the final result instead of each dice.  Once you get a decent amount of dice the chance of rolling above or below average really decrease.  On 4d6 you occasionally get 24, but I have never seen anyone roll 72 on 12d6.  I think the most I have seen on 12d6 was around 50, and that was a memorably roll that talked about years later.  So, a 10d6 set amount would be 10 body and 35 stun.   This would be a house rule, but seems reasonable.