6th Edition Rules for previous editions

[Hugh Neilson]

Right. Where we differ is in our attitudes towards a framework that has no mechanical downside, and is merely a way to save points. Before you can successfully convince me that ECs should have been replaced by a Limitation, you must first convince me that the purpose of the (pre-5e) EC framework lacks merit. That will be tough given that I like the intrinsic reward architecture of pre-5e ECs.

Leaving aside whether the GM and the player agree on what a "tight concept" is, and the fact that I could have three EC's, one each for Fire Powers, Cold Powers and Electrical Powers, if the HM does not like "Energy Powers", isn't "an enhanced human being" a tight concept? Why can't he buy STR, DEX,, CON, INT, PRE, etc. in an EC?

 

Well, I think maybe you're looking at the system a little too narrowly. You feel that point breaks should only come with limitations, and that's fine. But I have no problem at all with rewarding well-conceived character builds with "free points" (e.g., in the form of EC point discounts).

How about the more elegant mechanic of the "GM Likes Your Concept Bribe", simply the number of bonus points the GM chooses to give the character for having the kind of concept the GM wants to see? Since there is no mechanical impact, don't bother setting a point value at all.

[zslane]

I'm sure that could work for some gaming groups. But rules and subsystems are there to help the GM.

 

With an EC, the point savings is somewhat formalized so that the only judgment call required is whether or not to allow a particular EC, not what its "discount" should be worth.

[steriaca]

Talking about Skill Enchantment, Expert on page 45 of the Advance Player's Guide needs it. As long as it fits the subject the character is an expert on, and the skill is a Language, KS, PS, and/or SS, then he can get a cost break. So, if he is an otaku, he gains a costbreak on Language: Japanese, KS: Japanese Pop Culture, KS: Anime and Manga, KS: Japanese Mythologies, KS: Japanese History (As Depicted In Japanese Pop Culture), KS: Video Games, among others.

[Tasha]

Again Elemental Controls were added to make things a bit more fair for non melee characters who couldn't take advantage of the HUGE discounts on Secondary Stats. Until 5th edition they did nothing else mechanically. Also they were a nightmare for GMs because some powers were disallowed "unless the GM says it's ok". Removing EC's makes it easier for both Players and GMs because they don't have to worry about what powers are and are not allowable in an EC. Also, there's less pushback on what is an allowable type. Is Mutant Powers a good enough EC? How about Magical Powers? Alien Species? etc. With Unified power you could allow Mutant Power Unified Powers because you could come up with abilities that drain/dispel etc Mutant powers as a single thing.

Another reason for the change is a change of philosophy for buying powers. Steve took the whole "If something doesn't limit a power it isn't worth points" to heart. The whole system was rebuilt with that philosophy, which IMHO is another reason that Secondary Characteristics were decoupled from the primaries. In 6e you get the stuff you pay for nothing else. Your limitations limit the power's usefulness. Advantages are advanageous

Skill Enhancers exist to give players an incentive to actually buy multiple "Background Skills". Players don't need incentives to buy powers they are generally useful. Background skills tend to be very dependent on circumstance as to whether they are useful. So in Early editions it would be a miracle if a PC had even a single PS and that tended to be on an 11- roll at best. 

[zslane]

Hmm.

 

It looks to me like the rules are (still) absolutely littered with stuff that is governed by GM's discretion; this aspect of the game is encoded in the system's very DNA. Removing ECs (or anything for that matter) on the basis that it leaves one less thing for the GM to have to apply his or her discretion towards isn't much of a basis at all, really.

 

At the end of the day all it really comes down to is that some folks don't like ECs (and probably never did), and some folks do (like me). They probably don't see any value in incentivising players to build characters that are tightly themed (by whatever definition makes sense to them). Like I mentioned earlier, my solution is to simply re-instate ECs into my own campaigns. It's easy to do. It's just a pain to have to pull the rules from an earlier edition to do so. It's also one more reason why I am inclined to stick with 4e, with a smattering of things cherry-picked from 5e, and just pretend 6e never happened.

[Tasha]

Hmm.

 

At the end of the day all it really comes down to is that some folks don't like ECs (and probably never did), and some folks do (like me). They probably don't see any value in incentivising players to build characters that are tightly themed (by whatever definition makes sense to them). Like I mentioned earlier, my solution is to simply re-instate ECs into my own campaigns. It's easy to do. It's just a pain to have to pull the rules from an earlier edition to do so. It's also one more reason why I am inclined to stick with 4e, with a smattering of things cherry-picked from 5e, and just pretend 6e never happened.

I liked Elemental Controls well enough. I abused them as much as any other Hero System Player. They were annoying to use and forced particular powerlevels on powers. I LOVE Unified Power and how I can apply it to any and all powers that I deem to be close enough in special effect that they belong together and would all be effected at the same time if Drained or dispelled. Adding it back into 6e gives away a lot of points to PCs that ECs fit for and penalized melee PCs that don't often if ever have a powerset that can fit into an EC.

[DreadDomain]

At the end of the day all it really comes down to is that some folks don't like ECs (and probably never did), and some folks do (like me). They probably don't see any value in incentivising players to build characters that are tightly themed (by whatever definition makes sense to them). Like I mentioned earlier, my solution is to simply re-instate ECs into my own campaigns. It's easy to do. It's just a pain to have to pull the rules from an earlier edition to do so. It's also one more reason why I am inclined to stick with 4e, with a smattering of things cherry-picked from 5e, and just pretend 6e never happened.

 

Personally, I loved EC and was using it extensively. However, I believe Unified Powers just work better and is way easier to use as a tool to incentivise players to build characters that are tightly themed. The same goes for figured characteristics. I absolutely loved them and was shocked when I learnt they would go. Without them, it is now so much easier to build the character you want.

 

In the end, I had to admit dropping EC and Figured Characteristics were good ideas for 6e. So no, it doesn't (only) come down to folks who don't like ECs and probably never did.

 

That being said, absolutely reinstate them in your game! I would be tempted to do it just for tghe fun of it.

[zslane]

I liked Elemental Controls well enough. I abused them as much as any other Hero System Player. 

 

That seems to reveal more about the player than the framework...

[Hugh Neilson]

Right. Where we differ is in our attitudes towards a framework that has no mechanical downside, and is merely a way to save points. Before you can successfully convince me that ECs should have been replaced by a Limitation, you must first convince me that the purpose of the (pre-5e) EC framework lacks merit. That will be tough given that I like the intrinsic reward architecture of pre-5e ECs.

 

 

Well, I think maybe you're looking at the system a little too narrowly. You feel that point breaks should only come with limitations, and that's fine. But I have no problem at all with rewarding well-conceived character builds with "free points" (e.g., in the form of EC point discounts).

 

So why is the EC the best way to apply such a reward? Another "limit how I spend my points" mechanic that was cut moving to 6e was "Normal Characteristic Maximum", which as 20 points less Disadvantages (Complications) required by a player who was not buying stats above NCM anyway - a "tight concept bonus" in its own right.

 

So where were the free points for "can't have mental powers"? That player is also restricting his character (less than an EC or NCM, but still restricted), so why no free points? Does a "tight concept" automatically mean a movement power and a defense power have the same AP cost? That was the most efficient use of EC's, so it must be a desirable outcome we are trying to reward, right?

 

Ignore the question of whether a tight concept should be rewarded with a cost discount with no mechanical drawback, and assume that we wish to reward the tight concept in and of itself. What, if anything, makes the EC Framework (removing the "drain one/drain all" limitation) the appropriate reward? How is it superior from a "Tight Concept" complication (built around "no stats above NCM" being a 20 point complication, and priced higher or lower depending on the restrictiveness of the concept)? How is it superior to "Unified Power" as a -1/4 limitation for a tight concept (instead of for powers all affected by the same adjustment power)?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Another "limit how I spend my points" mechanic that was cut moving to 6e was "Normal Characteristic Maximum", which as 20 points less Disadvantages (Complications) required by a player who was not buying stats above NCM anyway 

 

That one is a bit more defensible, because not only do the points double at a certain level (something nobody else in the campaign has to face) but just because they didn't spend any above the max at creation doesn't mean they never will.  It is reasonable as a physical complication, but not 20 points worth.  NCM didn't make it impossible to buy characteristics up, it changed the cost structure of the game over a certain level.

 

[bigdamnhero]

Skill enhancers do NOT necessarily have a tight concept ... and have no requirement for a tight concept.  They are just cost saving structures for specific categories of skills -- that exist specifically to incent the purchase of those skills; nothing more and nothing less.

 

Take Dick Richards (aka Mr. Sensational), whose super powers are 1 Extra Limb (defined as a 'third leg') and Stretching.  He's taken Scientist ... and the science skills he has are: mathematics, statistics, and geology.   Is this a tight concept?  No.  And one isn't needed; he can have whatever science skills he chooses and get his cost break.

All I can say is if most of your ECs had "tighter" concepts than that, especially in a comic book supers game, then my hat's off to you.

[Surrealone]

Another reason for the change is a change of philosophy for buying powers. Steve took the whole "If something doesn't limit a power it isn't worth points" to heart. The whole system was rebuilt with that philosophy, which IMHO is another reason that Secondary Characteristics were decoupled from the primaries. In 6e you get the stuff you pay for nothing else. Your limitations limit the power's usefulness. Advantages are advanageous

 

Skill Enhancers exist to give players an incentive to actually buy multiple "Background Skills". Players don't need incentives to buy powers they are generally useful. Background skills tend to be very dependent on circumstance as to whether they are useful. So in Early editions it would be a miracle if a PC had even a single PS and that tended to be on an 11- roll at best. 

You can't seriously expect people to believe "Steve took the whole 'If something doesn't limit [an expenditure, such as a power] it isn't worth points' to heart" (your words) ... when in the very next paragraph you talk about how "Skill Enhancers exist to give players an incentive to actually buy multiple 'Background Skills'" ... without any discussion about how there's no limit/limitation associated with Skill Enhancers?  Can you???

 

I mean, if it was taken to heart, I'd reasonably expect it to have been applied evenly across the rule base, rather than nixing one structure that served only to provide a cost break/incentive without a limitation ... while leaving others in place that do the same thing.  Thus, the EC change looks more like personal bias than it does even application of a fundamental premise.

 

 

It looks to me like the rules are (still) absolutely littered with stuff that is governed by GM's discretion; this aspect of the game is encoded in the system's very DNA. Removing ECs (or anything for that matter) on the basis that it leaves one less thing for the GM to have to apply his or her discretion towards isn't much of a basis at all, really.

I agree that folks here can't legitimately state there was a problem with GM's having to OK things (as with EC's) out one side of their mouths ... and out the other side of their mouths condone the typical "unless the GM rules otherwise" language that seems to appear at the end of nearly every other paragraph in 5e and later.  Doing so is disingenuous -- because either one wants the GM to have say (in which case there was never a problem with EC's) or one doesn't (in which case there was never a need to add all the "unless the GM rules otherwise" remarks to 5e and later).

 

 

So why is the EC the best way to apply such a reward?

No one said it was the best; but it existed and was workable -- and was certainly more easily managed than slapping Unified Power on a pile of things.

 

​Also, asking in this thread why people think it is the best strikes me as a way to turn the conversation around, by the way -- amidst a demonstrated inconsistency in the removal of one structure whose purpose was to give cost-breaks ... while others were left in the game (demonstrating inconsistent application of the 'if it doesn't limit an expenditure then it isn't worth points' philosophy Tasha claims was supposedly taken to heart ... but whose uneven application across the entire rule base says otherwise).  I think that'd be a better question put to Steve Long in a section of the forum where he'd answer; too bad he won't answer design philosophy questions.

 

 

That one is a bit more defensible, because not only do the points double at a certain level (something nobody else in the campaign has to face) but just because they didn't spend any above the max at creation doesn't mean they never will.  It is reasonable as a physical complication, but not 20 points worth.  NCM didn't make it impossible to buy characteristics up, it changed the cost structure of the game over a certain level.

 

I tend to agree with this, as well.

[Tasha]

Because so many people keep missing this point I will make it bold. ECs exist to balance out the deep discounts on secondary stats that Melee characters get with Figured Characteristics. If you aren't using Figured characteristics (which have their own major issues IMHO), then you are giving all non-melee a huge discount on their powers that isn't counterbalanced by melee getting a discount on their abilities. So by keeping them around in 6e you are making it disadvantageous to write up melee characters. I can point out that ECs were so advantageous that many of the melee characters would take them as well, which circumvented their reason for being.

You can see that Philosophy in the costing of a lot of things in 5e and 6e. ie Cha losing the rounding benefit in 5e, Dex being 2pts per pip (instead of the 1:1 other primary stats cost. Growth is more expensive in 6e expensive because it includes stats and bunch of other benefits, Skill levels are more expensive in 6e,

 

I like unified power because it's easier to use IMHO. If I decide that I want my PC to have all of their powers to be drained by a single adjustment power, I take the limitation. If I don't I leave it off. It works the same as any other limitation now. No getting a pile of free points for. Yes, there are plenty of things with the reminder that the GM can make a different ruling. Removing one of those is a nice thing. It means that it's one less thing I have to negotiate with the GM (or Players if I am GM). ECs are kind of an annoying

Skill enhancers weren't built by Steve. Also, I make a point about that concept being about powers. I can also point out that giving a player an incentive to buy something they wouldn't normally buy is VERY different from giving players a cost discount for taking powers they would already be taking. As a GM I REALLY want my players to have a bunch of KSs, PSs, SS, CK, AKs etc. They are pretty darned expensive to buy more than one. esp since many will never be used by a PC. Skill enhancers are built on the same philosophy as Package Bonuses were. Which was to reward players for taking limits and skills they wouldn't normally take by giving them a discount for taking them. Steve's philosophy is different, so I don't know why he left the Skill enchancers alone ex that perhaps he thought that it was a good mechanic for getting players to take skills they wouldn't take otherwise. YMMV.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I can also point out that giving a player an incentive to buy something they wouldn't normally buy is VERY different from giving players a cost discount for taking powers they would already be taking.

 

Yeah people don't need to be incentivized to buy energy blast and flight.  They do need to be to buy their third language or knowledge skill.

[Surrealone]

Yeah people don't need to be incentivized to buy energy blast and flight.  They do need to be to buy their third language or knowledge skill.

I guess I'm accustomed to GM's incentivizing players to buy their third language or knowledge skills by using in-game tools/hooks ... like not understanding the Jihadi terrorist barking orders at subordinates causing a player of one of our Heroes to go, "Golly, maybe I should have Hero X buy Rosetta Stone and study/pick up Arabic..."

 

I certainly wouldn't expect a cost break to be given if there are no limitations associated with the cost break... especially since we're told Steve took that concept to heart.  (Actions regarding rules changes suggesting otherwise, aside...)

[Surrealone]

Yeah people don't need to be incentivized to buy energy blast and flight.  They do need to be to buy their third language or knowledge skill.

I guess I'm accustomed to GMs incentivizing players to buy their third language or knowledge skills by using in-game tools/hooks ... like not understanding the Jihadi terrorist barking orders at subordinates causing a player of one of our Heroes to go, "Golly, maybe I should have Hero X buy Rosetta Stone and study/pick up Arabic..."

 

I certainly wouldn't expect a cost break to be given if there are no limitations associated with the cost break... especially since we've been told Steve took that concept to heart.  (Actions regarding rules changes suggesting otherwise, aside...)

 

 

Because so many people keep missing this point I will make it bold. ECs exist to balance out the deep discounts on secondary stats that Melee characters get with Figured Characteristics. If you aren't using Figured characteristics (which have their own major issues IMHO), then you are giving all non-melee a huge discount on their powers that isn't counterbalanced by melee getting a discount on their abilities. So by keeping them around in 6e you are making it disadvantageous to write up melee characters. I can point out that ECs were so advantageous that many of the melee characters would take them as well, which circumvented their reason for being.

I didn't miss this, I just ignored it because it made zero sense to me.  You've attributed the existence/reason for being (to use your words) of EC's to exactly one thing -- which is stated nowhere within any version of RAW, to date, so far as I can tell.  Before I'll accept this so-called 'reason for being' for EC's, you must first demonstrate that assertion within RAW.  Unfortunately I don't have 1e, 2e, or 3e around anymore, so I'd request that you cite 4e or 5e so I can fact-check... assuming you can show for fact what you stated as if it is fact.

 

I ask for this because per 5er RAW (page 312):

Elemental Controls provide a cost savings to a character in exchange for  buying related Powers that fit his conception well and  accepting certain restrictions on those Powers." 

Do you see anything there that limits ECs only to non-meleers ... or even hints that they're meant primarily for non-meleers to balance out figured characteristics often possessed by meleers?  Me either.  To me, this means that pre-6e, meleers and non-meleers, alike, could and would and should use ECs ... if appropriate.  (Examples: Armor/Resistant Defense; Damage Reduction; Absorption -- common things to see in meleer ECs, IIRC.) It also means that had ECs been kept in 6e, both meleers and non-meleers, alike, would still have been able to use them.  (I don't know about you, but I saw plenty of meleer characters with EC's...)

 

So, how is something a meleer could use pre-6e ... and could have used if it was still in 6e ... a disadvantage to meleers?  Oh, because someone else might use it ... or use it more?  Well, gosh, by that (flawed) logic, Blast must make it 'disadvantageous to write up melee characters' ... and it should have been pulled, too, just because non-meleers would use it to their advantage, more?  I think we can agree that's absurd, but hey, it's the logic you're claiming resulted in ECs being removed ... and it is, indeed, absurd in that context, too.

 

 

Yes, there are plenty of things with the reminder that the GM can make a different ruling. Removing one of those is a nice thing. It means that it's one less thing I have to negotiate with the GM (or Players if I am GM).

That's sort of like saying "yes, when doing aerobics in Hell and you have 11,499,999 more jumping jacks to go ... removing one of those is a nice thing. It means that it's one less jumping jack to do."  There are so many things in the game that must be negotiated with the GM (a list that has steadily grown from 4e onward, with the real bloat taking place in 5e and later) ... one more makes a negligible difference when expressed as a percentage of the whole (much like 1 less jumping jack in hell makes little difference when expressed as a percentage of the aforementioned whole).

[Christopher R Taylor]

I guess I'm accustomed to GMs incentivizing players to buy their third language or knowledge skills by using in-game tools/hooks ... like not understanding the Jihadi terrorist barking orders at subordinates causing a player of one of our Heroes to go, "Golly, maybe I should have Hero X buy Rosetta Stone and study/pick up Arabic..."

 

 

Wait, so you think people need Elemental Control to encourage them to buy powers, but not any encouragement to buy skills except in game?

[Tasha]

I wish I could point you at the Archives where all of the 6e stuff was discussed before Steve wrote it. Steve doesn't talk about design stuff anymore, so don't think he would be able to enlighten you. I guess you could ask why Elemental Controls were replaced in 6e.

[Hyper-Man]

re: EC and melee characters.

 

5e EC only allowed powers that cost END by default.  Reduced END could be applied but powers that did not cost END to begin with could not be included without taking some form of the Costs END Limitation.  

 

HM

[Chris Goodwin]

I wish I could point you at the Archives where all of the 6e stuff was discussed before Steve wrote it. Steve doesn't talk about design stuff anymore, so don't think he would be able to enlighten you. I guess you could ask why Elemental Controls were replaced in 6e.

 

As I recall, and I can't remember whether it was in the public run up to 6e discussion or in SETAC, or even in person, but I recall Steve once telling me that ECs generated almost as many rules questions as everything else in the system combined.  

[Netzilla]

Reasons I recall being discussed for getting rid of EC in favor of UP:

 

1. Eliminated several pages of rules surrounding ECs.  Since ECs behaved very different from the other frameworks, they took up a fair amount of space for explanation.

 

2. In addition to being mechanically complex, the math was odd.  As I recall, the ways ECs were calculated changed more than any other Framework from edition to edition because of the wonky math making them fairly easy to abuse.

 

3. A lot of players over the years (on these board and the old mailing list) complained about EC abuses.  It seemed to come up at least as often as VVP abuse topics.

 

4. The flexibility of being able to use UP in conjunction with MPs and VPPs plus it not excluding certain types of powers gives UP more flexibility than the EC.

 

Unified Power was discussed semi-extensively in the pre-6 discussion on these boards, where I did some math comparisons (I was calling it Elemental Link at the time as a name hadn't been come up with yet).

 

As to the idea that ECs are analogus to high STR/CON/DEX character getting a break through Figured Chars...  I couldn't say where that idea originates from but it was pretty ubiquitous "wisdom" on this forum and the old champ-l mailing list, by my recollection.  Often, however, some of the most abusive characters were those that could take advantage of both.  In any case, it's not an idea unique to Tasha.

 

 

As I recall, and I can't remember whether it was in the public run up to 6e discussion or in SETAC, or even in person, but I recall Steve once telling me that ECs generated almost as many rules questions as everything else in the system combined.

 

 

I recall this as well but, like you, I don't recall where I heard it.

[Surrealone]

Wait, so you think people need Elemental Control to encourage them to buy powers, but not any encouragement to buy skills except in game?

I didn't say that, at all.  I just think if you're going to encourage purchases (i.e. skills, powers, etc .... for conceptual reasons) ... the same rules should apply for ECs and Skills, alike.

 

i.e. Either it's ok to give cost breaks to incent purchases (for skills, powers, or whatever else) with no limitations/downsides required in the game (as with Skill Enhancers ... and old-school ECs) ... or it's NOT ok to do so and point breaks should be given only for things that entail in-game limitations.

 

Trying to have it both ways is talking out both sides of one's mouth...

 

 

 

I wish I could point you at the Archives where all of the 6e stuff was discussed before Steve wrote it. Steve doesn't talk about design stuff anymore, so don't think he would be able to enlighten you. I guess you could ask why Elemental Controls were replaced in 6e.

I'm not interested in the 6e rationales, I'm interested in 5e and earlier RAW support for your assertion that 'ECs exist to balance out the deep discounts on secondary stats that Melee characters get with Figured Characteristics'. You have stated it was 'their reason for being' as if it is a fact, so I'm simply asking for you to show me where in 5e and earlier RAW this fact is actually stated.  (Without something in RAW to support that assertion, we have only an assertion/opinion ... not a verifiable fact.)

[Tasha]

I'm not interested in the 6e rationales, I'm interested in 5e and earlier RAW support for your assertion that 'ECs exist to balance out the deep discounts on secondary stats that Melee characters get with Figured Characteristics'. You have stated it was 'their reason for being' as if it is a fact, so I'm simply asking for you to show me where in 5e and earlier RAW this fact is actually stated.  (Without something in RAW to support that assertion, we have only an assertion/opinion ... not a verifiable fact.)

I have been playing for decades at this point. I have played with a variety of players including some of the original players of the game and their friends. This system has consumed the majority of my gaming since at least '85. I have been participating with Hero online since the days of the Hero Discussion Group on AOL.

 

I don't know where I read that or heard that. I am pretty sure that it came up during the question phase of 6e. When people wanted to know why EC's disappeared along with Figured Characteristics.

 

So I know that you want to sealion my assertions to death. That's fine, at this point I don't give a fig about what you believe or how you want to run your game. Both Chris and Netzilla gave you other reasons that it was removed from the game. To my knowledge none of Hero's designers have talked about why they designed things in a particular way at least not until Steve asked our opinions about the changes he was bringing to the system. Oh, and Removing Figured Characteristics was non-negotiable. It was going to happen whether we liked it or not. I wish the Archive had those posts so I could refer you to the 1000 pages of rules discussion about 6e and you can see how the design evolved. The SETAC folk (including Netzilla and Chris Goodwin) were a subgroup that helped Steve closer in designing and redesigning stuff that went into 6e.

 

IMHO Unified Power is a much more elegant solution and in many cases saves as much if not more points than ECs did. It's way more flexible as well. YMMV, I am sick of arguing with you.

[steriaca]

(Without something in RAW to support that assertion, we have only an assertion/opinion ... not a verifiable fact.)

Try telling that to a Republican...

[Hugh Neilson]

I guess I'm accustomed to GMs incentivizing players to buy their third language or knowledge skills by using in-game tools/hooks ... like not understanding the Jihadi terrorist barking orders at subordinates causing a player of one of our Heroes to go, "Golly, maybe I should have Hero X buy Rosetta Stone and study/pick up Arabic..."

 

I certainly wouldn't expect a cost break to be given if there are no limitations associated with the cost break... especially since we've been told Steve took that concept to heart.  (Actions regarding rules changes suggesting otherwise, aside...)

Unlike occasionally useful powers, Skills like background skills, languages, etc. cannot be placed in a Multipower or VPP to reduce their costs. Paying 3 points for a "skill pool" that reduces the cost of related skills by 1 point each seems like a reasonable analogy to a Multipower. How often do you need to be able to speak English, French, Russian, Arabic and Ancient Egyptian simultaneously?

 

So, how is something a meleer could use pre-6e ... and could have used if it was still in 6e ... a disadvantage to meleers?  Oh, because someone else might use it ... or use it more?  Well, gosh, by that (flawed) logic, Blast must make it 'disadvantageous to write up melee characters' ... and it should have been pulled, too, just because non-meleers would use it to their advantage, more?  I think we can agree that's absurd, but hey, it's the logic you're claiming resulted in ECs being removed ... and it is, indeed, absurd in that context, too.

An Energy Projector would generally have his main defenses and main movement power, and perhaps main attack, in an EC. A melee character would generally have STR as his main attack, PD/ED as his main defense, and Leaping from STR as a significant movement power - none of which could be in that EC.

 

I didn't say that, at all.  I just think if you're going to encourage purchases (i.e. skills, powers, etc .... for conceptual reasons) ... the same rules should apply for ECs and Skills, alike.

So why are the rules for skills and powers in other frameworks different? The reality is that Figured Characteristics were, in their own way, a framework. Buy CON and get these added bonuses. That point break was removed in 6e, and the component parts reduced to a more realistic price, as they did not really cost 1/STUN, 0.5/END and 2/REC - no one paid significant amounts at those prices, they just bought more STR and CON.

 

I'm not interested in the 6e rationales, I'm interested in 5e and earlier RAW support for your assertion that 'ECs exist to balance out the deep discounts on secondary stats that Melee characters get with Figured Characteristics'. You have stated it was 'their reason for being' as if it is a fact, so I'm simply asking for you to show me where in 5e and earlier RAW this fact is actually stated.  (Without something in RAW to support that assertion, we have only an assertion/opinion ... not a verifiable fact.)

So sorry there is not a few hundred extra pages in 5e to explain all the reasoning to your satisfaction, but there is not. Where in RAW does it say Skill Enhancers serve to reduce the cost of skills rather than enhance base level proficiency (as is the case for background skills and languages)?