Earlier vs. Current Editions of Champions

[starblaze]

12 hours ago, Spence said:

You did notice what I actually said? 

They wanted a hammer "like" Thor's and they wanted it to return to hand after being thrown and not be able to be taken away.

So I don't know why you would bring up that Thor's hammer could be taken.  We are not talking about Thor's hammer.  We are talking about a similar hammer that cannot be taken. 

Not trying to be antagonistic. 

Just confused...

Even though the Hammer will come back to him he can be separated from it and in the classic version of Thor he will turn back into Donald Blake.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Movement is halved, and divorced from beloved 25mm hexes representing 6 feet or 2m on tan Chessex battle maps

 

Movement is exactly the same as it was.  A normal human being moves 12 meters in a combat move in a phase, no matter what edition you use.  It was called "inches" but the distance was always exactly the same.  If you want you can still call it that, or consider each hex to be 2m.  You roll to hit the same.  You resolve damage the same.  You use the same maneuvers.  You have the same stats for damage.  You have the same powers that act the same way (entangle, KA, drain, etc).  You use the same defenses. 

 

I mean, people bring up stuff like Comeliness being gone (didn't affect game play, that's RP stuff), Complication points (character creation) and other ideas, but when it comes down to sitting at the table, someone who only played 3rd edition traveling through time could play 6th edition without any confusion or shock very easily.  There are a few new powers to get used to but aside from that?  Its the same game.  

 

I cannot for the life of me comprehend how someone would suddenly have no fun with Champions because of the new editions, its not like D&D which changed so much between recent editions.  Its just Champions with some new bells and whistles added.  What about the new edition makes it less fun?  The color of the books?

 

I have some problems with 6th, but I mean, this whole "it ruined the game" thing is baffling to me. You can even add Comeliness back into the game if you want, the rules even say so.

[Jhamin]

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I cannot for the life of me comprehend how someone would suddenly have no fun with Champions because of the new editions, its not like D&D which changed so much between recent editions.  Its just Champions with some new bells and whistles added.  What about the new edition makes it less fun?  The color of the books?

 

I have my issues with the presentation.  I do think that 4e was the height of accessibility for Hero, but the big blue book was *very* focused on Superheroes.  I agree that the 2 volume version of 6e is probably not the way to get new players and that Champions Complete was a much better entry product.

 

When it gets down to how every rules change since 1982, 1984, or 1990 has been a step backwards, along with other threads on this board about how a bunch of super dated setting stuff like Eurostar is still relevant in the 2020s or discussions about how you basically can't have investigations in the age of cell-phones I keep coming back to my growing feeling that a lot of the people who are still posting here are mostly nostalgic for their high school & college games from 30-40 years ago.

[Duke Bushido]

Why plan a combination attack with your twammayes when you have 500 points of powers you can bring to bear all by yourself?

 

Why calculate an attack, fall back, attack again plan when powers cost half the endurance they used to, and Endurance ia cheaper than tap water?

Why manage any power, when for twice the cost, it doesnt cost endurance at all?  Hammer away all you want; go full-bore nonstop.  Figuring zero End _roughly_ doubkes the cost, you can essentially,build rhose old 250 pt characters, but with zero regard for Endurance use or management.

 

No.  The _mechanic_ are the same; the way the game is played is not, because the old concerns have been replaced with different ones.  Someone above pointed out the differences between Barrier and Force Wall.  You do not uae Barrier the same way, relying on aspects that it doesn't have anymore.  You can't.

 

You don't have to play to the strengths or avoid the weaknesses ofbyour characteristics, because you no longer have to carefully allocate your spending, pickinf and choosing what Characteristics you will boost and which you will not in order to afford your endurance-free power builds.  You want straight 40s?  No biggie.  You've got pints left!

 

Which of your sixty (or less) points of disadvantages may affect the scenario at hand?

 

Rhe mechanics are the same, period.  The play is not.  You can use chess pieces to play checkers and the game remains the same.  Add thirty reserve pieces to each side, and the way people play will change.

 

Flying kings-  anybody play that crap?  It is _not_ the same as rwgular checkers.  Seems like it: only one thing is changed.  That one thing, though, radically changes how you play the game.

   

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well Duke, nothing compels you to use 400+ point characters, you can make them lower point value if you choose.  I mean we agree on how cheap endurance is, and that's a  problem but the game is still Champions.

[Sketchpad]

19 hours ago, Spence said:

You did notice what I actually said? 

They wanted a hammer "like" Thor's and they wanted it to return to hand after being thrown and not be able to be taken away.

So I don't know why you would bring up that Thor's hammer could be taken.  We are not talking about Thor's hammer.  We are talking about a similar hammer that cannot be taken. 

Not trying to be antagonistic. 

Just confused...

 

6 hours ago, starblaze said:

Even though the Hammer will come back to him he can be separated from it and in the classic version of Thor he will turn back into Donald Blake.

 

You said "a hammer like Thor's" which is why I responded the way I did. I must've missed the "not be able to be taken away" @Spence. 

[Sketchpad]

59 minutes ago, Jhamin said:

I have my issues with the presentation.  I do think that 4e was the height of accessibility for Hero, but the big blue book was *very* focused on Superheroes.  I agree that the 2 volume version of 6e is probably not the way to get new players and that Champions Complete was a much better entry product.

 

When it gets down to how every rules change since 1982, 1984, or 1990 has been a step backwards, along with other threads on this board about how a bunch of super dated setting stuff like Eurostar is still relevant in the 2020s or discussions about how you basically can't have investigations in the age of cell-phones I keep coming back to my growing feeling that a lot of the people who are still posting here are mostly nostalgic for their high school & college games from 30-40 years ago.

 

I have some issues with the presentation as well. But mine are related more to the graphic design of the books, which really should be updated to a more modern philosophy. 6e was a great attempt, but the stat blocks and general page layout needs work. As for the background, it's time for a Crisis of Champions Earths.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I have some issues with the presentation as well.

 

Me too, it was too dry and block of text, and the books too huge.  I appreciate what Steve was trying to do but it was overboard.  I don't really know what the heck "more modern philosophy" means for design though.

[Lord Liaden]

18 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

But if I could, I would play 7E

 

Honestly, I would not. I have zero interest in a new iteration of Hero System. At this point the rules have been reviewed, deconstructed, balanced, optimized, optionized, clarified, and hair-split to within an inch of their lives. There are no more pressing issues to deal with. Any further changes would just be an editor imposing his/her particular view of a "better" way to do something, which many Herophiles would disagree with, while most of those who would agree already just house-rule it like that for their own games anyway.

[IndianaJoe3]

10 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Honestly, I would not. I have zero interest in a new iteration of Hero System. At this point the rules have been reviewed, deconstructed, balanced, optimized, optionized, clarified, and hair-split to within an inch of their lives. There are no more pressing issues to deal with. Any further changes would just be an editor imposing his/her particular view of a "better" way to do something, which many Herophiles would disagree with, while most of those who would agree already just house-rule it like that for their own games anyway.

 

So, you're saying that the Hero System is perfect as-is?

 

 

 

I didn't think so. There's still a lot of cruft in the system, and complex systems that resulted from design decisions made multiple editions ago. Does it need another edition? Good question. (I don't think that Champions Now was it.)

[Christopher R Taylor]

Honestly, I would not. I have zero interest in a new iteration of Hero System. 

 

I think there are things that could be better, but I would really really rather there not be a new edition put out for a while at least.  My reasons are entirely selfish: I'd have to re-write everything I've put out so far to fit the new edition

[Sketchpad]

 

17 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I don't really know what the heck "more modern philosophy" means for design though.

 

Modern Design Philosophy, to me at least, is emulating the genre you're depicting. Look at several of the games on the market these days... D&D, Pathfinder, various 2d20 systems, Mutants & Masterminds, etc. Many of these games have a sleek design that incorporates color well, and emulates the genre they're set in. Font choices come into play here, as do layout designs, stat block design, images... the overall construction of the book looks pleasing to the eye, and, in some cases more interesting. Pathfinder is a big stand out for me. While I don't play 2nd ed or Starfinder, the books are gorgeous! Easily something you can just flip through and get some basic ideas behind the game visually. I just don't see that in Hero, no matter the book I look at. 

 

On 6/23/2022 at 6:35 AM, DreadDomain said:

But if I could, I would play 7E

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a 7e Hero, but I'd like to see some vast changes in how some of the rules work. Up until now, we've had a rework of a rework of a rework of the same rule for the most part. Sure they changed figured characteristics, and some powers, and this and that. I'd like to see bigger changes, personally. Rather than an "or less" roll, I'd love to have a "higher than" check instead. I'd like to see the universes reworked and modernized a bit, and while I love the toolkit feel of the game, I'd like to see a return of the setting + rules. Champions, Espionage, Justice Inc. and others of its time is how I came into Hero, and I'd love to see full books "Powered by Hero" rather than just a toolkit. But most of all, I'd like to see Hero back on store shelves and people talking about it more. This is really the primary place to talk Hero. In many circles that I'm in, the game is almost an anathema, with a few of us being the old fools that try to get people to play. The game needs a shot in the arm, and to become something big again. I never thought I'd say this, but gods do I miss the '90s! 

 

[HeroGM]

@Sketchpad - 3 -4 Rule books (not core, RULE). A players guide with what a player needs to know similar to Champions/Fantasy Hero Complete. A GM's book with additional information and 1-2 advanced Character Creation books with all the dense/crunch put in. Take the system back down to 4th or 5th Edition levels of presentation.

[DreadDomain]

19 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Honestly, I would not. I have zero interest in a new iteration of Hero System.

 

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Honestly, I would not. I have zero interest in a new iteration of Hero System. 

How dare you contradict me!

 

Honestly my comment was more about expressing support for what would come next than expressing a desire for a new edition.

 

What I would really want to see are professionally published books, to today's standards. 

 

I want much better organised character write-ups instead of the wall of stuff we sometimes see. The character sheet is the player/GM interface. It needs to be organised, it needs to be easy to read, it needs to look good.

 

HERO 6E is a powerful toolkit.  I would like to see this toolkit used to create games. And by using the toolkit I mean introducing concepts that are built using the toolkit but presented as a game element. One game could introduced figured characteristics (with primaries cost appropriately), another could remove MCVs and END and add COM. Another could add a list of talents using the toolkit but without writing them with all the lingo (-1/2, +3/4).

 

MHI and Extinction Event (I know it's not from DoJ) were steps in the right direction. Western HERO is a step in the right direction when it comes to content but it needs a much better presentation, better art, better organisation, better look. And the character write-ups in the book are the same wall of stuff.

 

Edited to add: This last point is not a critique of Christopher's work. He has done what I want writers to do with the system. I feel like DoJ didn't come to the party to develop, edit, organise and publish the book.

 

I want Champions Complete revised and republished to today's standards. This book should be the flagship of the line.

I want Danger International and Justice Inc.

 

I want HERO to be able to attract new players.

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

Modern Design Philosophy, to me at least, is emulating the genre you're depicting. Look at several of the games on the market these days... D&D, Pathfinder, various 2d20 systems, Mutants & Masterminds, etc. Many of these games have a sleek design that incorporates color well, and emulates the genre they're set in. Font choices come into play here, as do layout designs, stat block design, images... the overall construction of the book looks pleasing to the eye, and, in some cases more interesting. Pathfinder is a big stand out for me. While I don't play 2nd ed or Starfinder, the books are gorgeous! Easily something you can just flip through and get some basic ideas behind the game visually. I just don't see that in Hero, no matter the book I look at.

 

This.  Absolutely this.

 

6 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

I wouldn't mind seeing a 7e Hero, but I'd like to see some vast changes in how some of the rules work. Up until now, we've had a rework of a rework of a rework of the same rule for the most part. Sure they changed figured characteristics, and some powers, and this and that. I'd like to see bigger changes, personally. Rather than an "or less" roll, I'd love to have a "higher than" check instead.

 

Definitely NOT this.  Hero does not need a 7e in any way, shape or form. NOT THIS!!!

 

6 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 I'd like to see the universes reworked and modernized a bit, and while I love the toolkit feel of the game, I'd like to see a return of the setting + rules. Champions, Espionage, Justice Inc. and others of its time is how I came into Hero, and I'd love to see full books "Powered by Hero" rather than just a toolkit. But most of all, I'd like to see Hero back on store shelves and people talking about it more. This is really the primary place to talk Hero. In many circles that I'm in, the game is almost an anathema, with a few of us being the old fools that try to get people to play. The game needs a shot in the arm, and to become something big again. I never thought I'd say this, but gods do I miss the '90s!

 

THIS!  100% THIS!!!  1 MILLION% THIS!!!!!!!!!

 

We don't need a rework of the tools in the toolkit.  We need ACTUAL GAMES that people can ACTUALLY PLAY built using the toolkit.  The toolkit doesn't need to be at the forefront of these games.  They don't even need to include the builds defined in toolkit terms - put that online for interested folks. Build a game Powered by HERO without pulling back the curtain to show the crunchy Hero System build mechanics. Sell people a GAME, not a huge set of tiny parts they can use to build a game. 

 

A game where you CAN'T build whatever you imagine - you build what the choices made by the user of the toolkit already made for you.  Now play, and see how well the game plays.  And if, after that, you want to look under the hood, and maybe even do your own tinkering, you can always buy the Hero System and do so.

[DreadDomain]

3 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

We don't need a rework of the tools in the toolkit.  We need ACTUAL GAMES that people can ACTUALLY PLAY built using the toolkit.  The toolkit doesn't need to be at the forefront of these games.  They don't even need to include the builds defined in toolkit terms - put that online for interested folks. Build a game Powered by HERO without pulling back the curtain to show the crunchy Hero System build mechanics. Sell people a GAME, not a huge set of tiny parts they can use to build a game. 

 

A game where you CAN'T build whatever you imagine - you build what the choices made by the user of the toolkit already made for you.  Now play, and see how well the game plays.  And if, after that, you want to look under the hood, and maybe even do your own tinkering, you can always buy the Hero System and do so.

Yes, we are on the same wavelength here.

[Chris Goodwin]

Until I started playing in a regular 6th edition Champions game, 3rd edition was my jam.  I played in a couple of sessions run by @lemming at GameStorm in 2018, which is where I realized that he was using writeups from 5th and 6th editions without alteration, and the transitions were seamless.  That's where I started thinking that editions don't matter.  

 

When I started playing 6th edition regularly it started growing on me, and I realized I was having as much fun with it as in the old days, and the experience of play was the same.  Counting out hexes of movement, rolling out damage and Knockback... all of that felt exactly the same.  

 

I'll admit that tactics might differ, and I've gone into a lot of detail about how the experience of building characters and taking them into play differs, but to be honest I have a hard time seeing it in actual play.  The END thing... if in 4th-6th you're spending 2-4 END a phase on movement and 6 END per attack... at SPD 5 that's 40-50 END per Turn, so you're going to start running into issues almost as much as in first gen.  

 

For Fantasy Hero I'd almost have to play the original.  I've only played a little bit of FH post-3rd, and it never felt right to me, feeling like Champions in armor and swords.  I'd have to give it a good try in a campaign.  

 

I ran a short campaign of Robot Warriors using 6th edition for characters and the original book for robots, plus my conversion document, and it played identically to the original.  From that I'd expect that a Danger International game using 6th edition but otherwise the same assumptions as the original (no Powers, no points charged for equipment) would play the same as the original as well.  I didn't play a lot of Justice Inc. and no Star Hero (lots of SF-nal DI though), so I can't really speak to those, but I'd have to expect again that with the right initial assumptions it should play close enough.  

 

As far as editions, I don't think I really gave 4th a fair shake.  I played lots of 4th edition Champions, but I never really got over the rules changes that seemed unnecessary to me.  Point cost changes in powers I could deal with, but the big ones were the changes to END cost, Range Modifiers, and Disadvantage cost structure... and those don't bother me now for some reason.  I'm not sure why.  I played a total of one session of 5th (Fantasy Hero), and it just reinforced my feeling of it being Champions with horses and swords and shields.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

1st Fantasy Hero had this amazing feeling of being different, mostly because from the ground up it was built to be distinct and fantasy in flavor and origin: the names of the powers, the way characters were designed, etc.  It even added fantasy-oriented powers that had never been in the game before like Dispel.

 

However, the problem with using new names for powers is that it requires every player to learn new names for what they build instead of just new players, and its a bit confusing for new players when they try a different Hero product.  "Wait, this power is called Destroy in this game, and Laser in that one and Blast in this third one?  Why??"

 

As for feel and sense of the game, that has to do with the GM and tone and how abilities are structured.  If you can fly and blast and have a force field with your superhero... and have the same powers with your wizard, and your space man, and your secret agent that is going to feel fairly similar.  If you do the same sorts of adventures, really the only difference is the costume.

[DShomshak]

 

 

When my group plays Champions we play 5th Revised, and will never switch to 6th/Complete. Those of us who GM have no interest in rewriting villains *again.* I, ah, acquired 6e in pdf, and then bought Champions Complete, because I wanted to write for them, but I have never looked at any sections except character creation rules (inc. writing up Bases and Vehicles).

 

The changes I saw in 6th are for me, well, whatever. I suspect some of the more dramatic changes to Powers (such as Barrier replacing Force Wall) were done to facilitate a computer game. Since we stick to tabletop, these are fixes to problems we don't have.

 

Looking at 6e writeups in the Champions Villains books, though, I actually think they are too backwards-compatible, and this adversely affects the standards for creating new characters. For instance, Duke mentioned the game's chabging END economy: So why are most sample characters still built with an END that's about twice their CON? It perhaps makes more sense to give characters high END, and use Reduced END a lot less on Powers.

 

But that may be mere esthetics. More seriously, perhaps, most characters still have OCV/DCV at or close to the old DEX/3 standard, when there is no longer any reason to couple those values -- especially given that CV is now a grseat additional expense, and only the difference in CVs matters. Due to such changing costs, I find that a 350 point 5e character often cannot be rewritten as a 400 point 6e character. It takes more points. But that problem could likely be resolved if the usual range for character CVs was 5-7 (still well above human standard) rather than 8-10.

 

I have a soft spot in my heart for 4th, because it's the edition we played most and for which I wrote Creatures of the Night, Ultimate Super-Mage and Supermage Bestiary. But I find 5th hit a personal sweet spot in building PCs, because 350 point is enough you don't have to scramble and shave points to get the character you want. OTOH we now adopt 6e-style Complications, because trying to find 150 points of Disadvantages often resulted in Disadvantages that didn't really disadvantage, or that the GM didn't have time to use (frex, multiple Hunteds).

 

Like other people here, I think 4th gave better presentation that 5th, 6th or CC. But I credit 5th and 6th for one important addition: the copious sidebars of sample Power writeups. CC would have benefited from their retention.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

On 6/24/2022 at 12:01 PM, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

So, you're saying that the Hero System is perfect as-is?

 

 

 

I didn't think so. There's still a lot of cruft in the system, and complex systems that resulted from design decisions made multiple editions ago. Does it need another edition? Good question. (I don't think that Champions Now was it.)

 

I never said the Hero System is perfect as-is. The posts subsequent to mine and yours only reinforce the point I did make, which is that individual GMs/players decide for themselves what the "perfect" version of Hero is, and there is nowhere near unanimity among them as to how to achieve that. As I posted earlier on this thread, I myself modify the official rules to suit my preferences, but I acknowledge that that's mostly subjective. But I stand by my assertion that there are no objective issues left with the RAW that are in urgent need of revision because they detract from the game working as it was intended to. One could make the argument, as Sketchpad does above, that the way the entire game works should be revised. It's a fair argument, but I have no interest in that either. Hero works very well for what I want, and I've no desire to learn yet another set of rules. That was part of what tanked Fuzion for me as a replacement for Hero.

[Sketchpad]

On 6/24/2022 at 4:09 PM, HeroGM said:

@Sketchpad - 3 -4 Rule books (not core, RULE). A players guide with what a player needs to know similar to Champions/Fantasy Hero Complete. A GM's book with additional information and 1-2 advanced Character Creation books with all the dense/crunch put in. Take the system back down to 4th or 5th Edition levels of presentation.

 

For product lines, I'd love to see a "Campaign Setting" Starter Box, "Campaign Setting" Rule Book (see Champions 4e), "Campaign Setting GM Guide", and additional books that expand out "Campaign Setting." 

 

So, using Champions as an example... Champions Starter Box hits first with limited rules, then the Champions book with all the rules you need, Champions Villain Master Guide that gives additional rules and philosophy to run a Champions game, then Enemies books, Adventure books, Build books (Champions Powers, for example), etc. 
 

This could be done for a variety of settings... "Fantasy Hero World," "Danger International," "Star Hero World," etc. I would avoid having "Hero System" anything books. I just don't see the need if the rule books are already giving you want you need. I didn't need the Hero System Rulebook back in 4e, I just used Champions.

[Scott Ruggels]

On 6/23/2022 at 5:42 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Me too, it was too dry and block of text, and the books too huge.  I appreciate what Steve was trying to do but it was overboard.  I don't really know what the heck "more modern philosophy" means for design though.

 Strict genre emulation for the rules. Narrative (storytelling) focus, and mechanics minimalism, all in a visually pleasing package. They, not always, but, are usually are so focused on a single genre, or aspect, that they adapt poorly to other genres or situations. THey are the opposite of the "universalism of Hero, and GURPS.

[Scott Ruggels]

21 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

We don't need a rework of the tools in the toolkit.  We need ACTUAL GAMES that people can ACTUALLY PLAY built using the toolkit.  The toolkit doesn't need to be at the forefront of these games.  They don't even need to include the builds defined in toolkit terms - put that online for interested folks. Build a game Powered by HERO without pulling back the curtain to show the crunchy Hero System build mechanics. Sell people a GAME, not a huge set of tiny parts they can use to build a game.

 

This was discussed at length earlier, and I did think it was probably the right direction to go, if one wants to keep Hero in print and on shelves. The downside to that is taking any sort of Paizo level of execution is prohibitively expensive, and anything less looks incompetent or cheap. In a perfect world, several slim volumes of focused genre books with a handful of supplements available at launch would be ideal. Unfortunately we have the world as it is (with it's currently shrinking economy). This may have to be the realm of 3rd Party Crowd Funding campaigns, with the expressed endorsement of Hero Games, before launch. I don't see Hero themselves in any position to fund or organize this, with the current level of staffing and budget they have now.

 

21 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

A game where you CAN'T build whatever you imagine - you build what the choices made by the user of the toolkit already made for you.  Now play, and see how well the game plays.  And if, after that, you want to look under the hood, and maybe even do your own tinkering, you can always buy the Hero System and do so.

So then, what would these look like? How narrow, or wide is the scope?  How thin or fat are the books?  How vague or explicit are the stat blocks? Is END particularly important for one genre, but can be ignored in another, or are they all need END stats kept close track of?  Equipment as points or handed out? How many illustration's total? How many Diagrams total?  With the rising Popularity of Games Workshop products (even with the various backlashes happening from their recent decisions), supporting play with maps and minis may be popular. I know that printing minis and terrain is one of the activities that are really driving the sale of 3D printers.

 

I['d basically see this as a 100 page or less rulebook (Like JI and Espionage), with two or three 60 page or so supplements per book.  Sure , use 6e to build the assets, but never publish point totals for the stat blocks (except maybe in an appendix), decent text layout, and full color illustrations (Painterly, rather than classic comic book. Even comic books don't resembles their 1980s forebears at all. Square bound, if not hardback.

Licenses for wildly popular media properties are flatly unobtainable, and date quickly and are not worth pursuing. If one was to look at "longer tails" in terms of sales and interest, Might I suggest approaching Authors, to adapt their settings to a game book and supplements? Avoid the major publishers, and look for Amazon published authors that retain their own rights. There is a deep pool of inexpensive I.P among the self published authors, and a handy Amazon Rating of their quality beside the product.  Just a thought.

[BNakagawa]

I liked 4th/5th ed. 

 

6e disappointed me. They made some sweeping changes and failed to playtest or stress test them adequately.

 

Everyone just shrugs and says it's the GMs responsibility to ban/limit these problems at their tables, but that just worsens one of the most persistant complaints about Champions, is that it puts too much of a load on the GM.

[Opal]

So, I suppose the things from past editions I find "better" in some sense than later ones might be, relative to:

 

6th:  Power Frameworks, Figured Characteristics, Disadvantages.

5th: Package Deals? 

4th: 5 Apt/DC standard (HA, TK, & Martial Arts), Skills (going all the way back to 1st, really).

 

TBH, I have trouble remembering exactly which things changed when from 3rd-5th, and am not that familiar with 6th.

 

The big issue for me has long been skills.  From Champions II introducing an open ended set of ittybitty 2 pt skills "2pts, Norse StormHammer God's secret ID is a doctor!" to 4e folding all the other games' skills together, leading to needing to invest like 100 points in being a doc or lawyer in your secret id...

 

Original Champions had a handful of super-hero-appropriate skills at 5 or 10 points, and if you took em all and 3 or so overall levels, you were incredibly skilled. That's the direction Hero should have stuck with, a manageable, *finite* list of broad skills covering everything

Optionally, you could break out  open-ended specialized little ones, if you wanted, (I don't want "Detective," I just want "extensive study of tobacco ash" in my back pocket).