What are the differences between version 5 and version 6.

[Gauntlet]

Currently a version 5 player but looking to upgrade to version 6 but wanted to know the differences.

[Steve Long]

Here's a PDF of the two pages in 6E that summarize the main rules changes/differences.

 

Sixth Edition Character Conversion Summary.pdf

[Doc Democracy]

I think the biggest and most fundamental change was the loss of figured characteristics.

 

I have played Champions through every edition.  My friend decided to run a fourth edition game after the recent bundle of holding and I am actually amazed at how annoyed I am that the system almost demands that my heroes have higher strength and constitution than I want for them because it would be so inefficient not to buy them....

 

I think losing figured characteristics made the system closer to its core principle of purchasing game effect and applying SFX on top.

 

 

Doc

[DasBroot]

This exactly.  Dexterity's overall awesomeness was my great annoyance - though its effects on OCV an DCV and the cost associated with it DID make combat skill levels more appealing.

[Lord Liaden]

When 6E was imminent but not yet published, Steve Long posted a series of "showcases" of various edition rules changes and his thinking behind them, which provides more detail in a few areas than the character creation summary he attached above.

6E Showcases.rtf

[Era Scarecrow]

Some big changes, a lot of little changes...

[Christopher R Taylor]

In terms of actual play, very little changed.  The combat, movement, skill resolution etc is exactly the same except that instead of standardized game "inches" of 2 meters, the measurements are all in meters.  

 

The rest of the changes were in character creation, making things slightly more flexible and adding in a few new options.

[Gauntlet]

I am not sure, it seems with there being no figured characteristics doesn't it make creating Bricks very hard?

[L. Marcus]

Rather, Bricks got it too easy in earlier editions.

[mrinku]

Nah Bricks are fine. CON got cheaper and how much of a problem was END from 4e onwards anyway?

 

The old "CON Builds Characters 5 ways" mantra was from the 1 END per 5 active points era, when reduced END was also more expensive and REC more critical as a result. A 4e Brick with ½ END on STR really didn't need all that bonus END that a high CON gave. STUN and REC are a little different (everyone can use more of that) but is easily topped up with the points saved on cheaper CON in 6e.

[Crusher Bob]

Well, on the plus side, your brick no longer needs to be an post human gymnast, as OCV and DCV are no longer tied to DEX.  Also, standard characters are now 400 points.  I'm not sure what they were in 5E, but remember the much earlier standard point total was 250.

[IndianaJoe3]

Well, on the plus side, your brick no longer needs to be an post human gymnast, as OCV and DCV are no longer tied to DEX.  Also, standard characters are now 400 points.  I'm not sure what they were in 5E, but remember the much earlier standard point total was 250.

 

Standard superheroic was 350 in 5e. This was changed from 250 in earlier editions, to allow for more well-rounded characters at a higher power level. Looking back, I'm not sure this had the desired effect.

[mrinku]

Nope. I'm a big critic of power bloat. It *is* necessary to pad the starting budget a little going into 6e because of the loss of figured characteristics, removal of Elemental Controls and miscellaneous changes, but I found that 50-100 points extra was all I needed when converting old 4e characters, so I'm running with 350 pt characters that have 150pts of Complications as my new standard.

 

75pts of complications is really just pandering to bloat and IMHO doesn't give a superhero enough character hooks. Players are always free to take less complications and start at lower point values if they choose anyway. The thing that really annoyed me were all the 6e versions of 5e characters in the published books that ended up with zero point complications as a result. The new ones with just 75 are quite bland (Hmm... 15 point Hunted, 15 point Psych, 10 pt Psych, 15 point Social, 10 point DNPC, 10 point Rivalry. Boring).

 

But YMMV, and probably does.

[Cantriped]

Personally, I find the reduction in the number of Complications expected to be one of the most positive changes regarding how I write characters. Under the old standard (circa 5th edition for me) I always felt like I had to really stretch to come up with my allotment of Complications/Disadvantages as a player, and as a GM, there were always too many different disadvantages in play to actually touch on them all as frequently as they should be (if at all).

Admittedly, perhaps it wasn't intended for everybody to take their maximum points in Disadvantages, but by the time I upgraded from 5th to CC/FHC I had never encountered a character who hadn't taken every point they could get their hands on.

 

The new expectations feel more appropriate. I don't have to make my character psychologically dysfunctional, or have half a dozen Hunters and social problems to achieve the expected point level. I can focus on those complications which are actually appropriate to my character, and which ones I want to come up in play.

 

 

The thing that really annoyed me were all the 6e versions of 5e characters in the published books that ended up with zero point complications as a result. The new ones with just 75 are quite bland (Hmm... 15 point Hunted, 15 point Psych, 10 pt Psych, 15 point Social, 10 point DNPC, 10 point Rivalry. Boring).

 

But YMMV, and probably does.

I don't like the formatting of the 'zeroed' complications either, I think they should be showing what those complications are worth for the sake of having examples if nothing else. However, I don't think that NPCs should be formatted with an expected character/campaign level, matching complications, and experience points. NPCs should have as many character points as they need to pay for their Game Elements, and should only have Complications their backstory supports, and the GM plans to actually use against them.

[mrinku]

Because I came in pre-4e, my original experience was "100 points and as many extra as you can get from Disadvantages" with diminishing returns for multiple Disads of the same category. Old school was the first two disads gave full points, the next two gave half cost, the next two quarter cost etc. Of course there were also fewer disadvantage categories. You usually ended up with 200-250 point characters but it wasn't so rigidly capped.

 

4e bought in the system used in 5e with a maximum on both disadvantage and disad category totals, as well as a welcome increase in disadvantage types. 6e appears to have dropped the category total limits as part of scaling back the overall Complication total. That's not such a bad idea - there are concepts which should be allowed to break the old category limit - but GMs should feel free to impose category limits (or just disallow particular builds) if they think abuse will occur. 

[mrinku]

NPCs should have as many character points as they need to pay for their Game Elements, and should only have Complications their backstory supports, and the GM plans to actually use against them.

 

In the old days this was called the "Villain Bonus". More recent editions have just called it "Experience Spent", probably to appease the spreadsheet/HERO Maker...

 

I always felt that you should generally try to load all player-level characters up with a full slate of Disads/Complications. HERO, and especially Champions somewhat relies on discovering and exploiting weak spots. This is very much how it goes in superhero comics and many action films:

• First act - attempt to stop the threat, fail, get soundly beaten and/or retreat with losses
• Second act - "There has to be a way to beat this guy" - working that out. May involve further fights, or brainwork
• Third act - Using "the way to beat that guy" to beat that guy

It applies to players as much as NPCs. Flawless characters are frankly BORING, both to play and to play against.

 

And seriously, what are players expecting they can do? Build a character that the GM cannot possibly crush like an insect if they so choose?

[Cantriped]

 

I always felt that you should generally try to load all player-level characters up with a full slate of Disads/Complications. HERO, and especially Champions somewhat relies on discovering and exploiting weak spots.

I certainly agree with the latter, I love putting in weaknesses for the heroes to discover. It is an important aspect of the superheroic narrative. In terms of having a "full slate" of complications though, I'm obviously not so picky. I'm equally willing to write an NPC with very few (if any) Complications as I am to write one with more complication points than character points. I don't think a GM should feel compelled to write NPCs that have either a minimum or maximum number of Complications (or Complication points)

[Crusher Bob]

I've found that 75 points in complications feels like the right amount.  This gives the character something like 5-7 complications.  The old 150 points in complications meant at least 10 of them, which was too hard to remember.

 

I've also found that low point totals tend to mean that characters don't tend to have 'extra' abilities.  Everyone gets attack, defense, and movement.  So what really separates your character from the others is what you can do that's not attack, defense, and movement.  And if you didn't have any points left over.

[mrinku]

Fair points. All this is HIGHLY subjective. And in the interests of full disclosure I should point out I run at around 10DC and there are usually plenty of points spare for skills and such. A 12DC campaign is likely going to need a few more points.

 

And... these are merely defaults and choices. From 4e onwards especially it has been up to the GM to choose points totals and disadvantage/complication caps, and explicitly stated so.

 

Crusher Bob, I'd not fully agree that it's the extra abilities that separates one character from another, even if they are of very similar power types. HOW they attack, defend and move vary wildly even if the same points are plugged into each category, and stuff that doesn't cost points like background, personality, motivation and special effects - even costume design in some cases - inform the character's story a great deal. Power wise, there's not too much to separate The Thing and The Hulk. But the fact that Ben Grimm has Combat Piloting and Bruce Banner has a bunch of science skills plays little to no part in their similar but different stories. 

 

Or take Superman and Power Girl. Identical power sets. Pretty similar backgrounds and attitudes. But you really won't confuse the two.

[Ninja-Bear]

I've now come to like the OCV/DCV split from Dex. I can now keep nooks and charaters in a closer range I like with messing with DEX. And yeah Com gone isn't a bad thing too.

[Ninja-Bear]

I too like the reduction in Complications. I feel though that 400 pt is too much for a beginning player though.

[IndianaJoe3]

I too like the reduction in Complications. I feel though that 400 pt is too much for a beginning player though.

 

Same here. For some reason, "standard" superheroes tend to have more complicated builds (and higher power levels) than novice or street-level ones. I also wish there was more 6e supporting material for lower-powered campaigns.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Me three.  Having converted hundreds of 2-4th edition characters to 6th I can confidently say its too many points to make an equivalent character.  350 is much closer, although most of them fall in the 300 point region.

[Era Scarecrow]

hmmm after generating 3 characters, finding with the 10DC target range that a lot of points get dumped into stats, something like 150 per character.

 

Also finding a number of powers missing, renamed or re-categorized.

[mrinku]

Some of the missing ones are around, but part of other ones now. Which ones are you referring to in particular?