Wrecking Ball Feature: I'd wanted to talk to you about this, I'd been thinking something along the lines of a +2 circumstance bonus for wrecking 'normal' objects (Walls, doors, anything not a defice/special item/etc).
I would allow a +2 effect/damage bonus as long as it is basically "scenery", aka unattended items like doors, walls, lamp-posts, etc. Nothing that anyone - PC or NPC - paid points for.
Inertial Slam:
I'd already changed it away from Area to Multiattack, post/reasoning here:
The way I'm envisioning it is Inertia running around the battlefield smashing into people kinda like a pinball. I was pondering the 'full action' flaw, but then 'technically' he wouldn't be able to move, which negates the whole point.
The 'must use speed' limit was to show that he's actually physically moving the entire distance between everything he attacks (Meaning he's having to use his move action as well), so it's kind of a combo between 'full action' and 'requires movement'.
Basically the way I see it is he starts wherever he starts, moves to each of his targets after building up some speed, hits them, and continues bouncing/smashing into other targets before finally stopping.
I could just drop the multi-attack and just make it a straight up attack. Give him move-by action to account for the 'movement' theme.
I'll give other options some more thought.. what do you think?
Well, first off, there is no "full action" flaw in 3rd ed, so that's not really an option. To simulate such a thing, you could take the flaw "Activation" (Move Action) for a -1pp/rank deduction. This would require that you use both a Move and Standard action to make the attack. This may be the best option. Technically, with that flaw, you spend the Move action, but don't actually move. I think we could allow the flaw as long as your character moves during the attack, but ends up in the same place at the end of the attack. The "moving" part of it would be a special effect and you would gain nothing from it (as it should be, since this is a flaw).
To simulate taking damage if the attack doesn't affect the target, take the "Side Effect" flaw (the -1pp/rank version). It would end up being a Damage effect equal in points to your attack effect.
By RAW, Multi-attack is not going to let you move between targets, but I do like the idea of allowing it with cumulative penalties. I'm not sure what the benefit would be over Area. I guess the costs would be quite different, though.
Option 1: Multi-Attack
INERTIAL SLAM
Effect: Damage 7 (add str)
Extras: Accurate 1, Move Between Targets 1*, Multi-Attack (Multiple Target) 10, Penetrating 7
Flaws: Activation (Move Action), Side Effect (Target resists; Damage 11)
Total Cost: 11pp
*This is a 1pp extra that would allow you to use Move-By Action multiple times as part of this effect. You would need the Move-By Action advantage (which I think you have already).
Option 2: Area
INERTIAL SLAM
Effect: Damage 7 (add str)
Extras: Area Shapeable (+1 Size; 60ft) 20, Penetrating 7, Selective 10*
Flaws: Activation (Move Action), Side Effect (Target resists; Damage 30)
Total Cost: 30pp
*I added Selective because, even though you could control where your effect goes (Shapeable), if an enemy was engaged in melee with an ally, you would have to target both of them. Obviously, you could choose not to go this route, with obvious repurcussions.
Option 2 is really bad for that Side Effect, so obviously, some other flaw would need to take its place or it would have to be something other than Damage.
In the final analysis, I believe you are better off with Option 1. It's your call, of course.
