Hugh Neilson

I think the more likely scenario would be someone seeing this potential approaching the current owners of the IP to acquire it, perhaps with the existing Online game as a starting base to build on.

Hero is already very granular, so the breaking down of characteristics is not wholly out of the question, although I agree that it would be very counter-intuitive. How could we break STR down? Well, it can have in-combat STR effects. A Martial Arts DC adds these STR effects to all Martial maneuvers, and costs no END, for 4 points. If we accept "only martial maneuvers" is a -1/2 limitation, then +1 DC with all STR combat effects costs 4 points (or STR that provides only these effects is a -1/4 limitation). This also maintains "only direct normal damage", AKA Hand Attack, as a -1/2 limitation, but on STR instead of Blast. This leaves 1 point - there is your cost for Lifting. It's like a forklift. You need Lift to heft the object, and you can then Throw it. If you want damage from that throw, then you also need enough damaging STR to reach the Damage you want to achieve. STR minima and enhancement to real weapons by excess STR would require use of that damaging STR. My views that STR adding to a KA should be replaced by KA's that have extra dice requiring, and locking out, some STR. We're part-way there with limitations for STR minima. But this would work with either vision, so there's no benefit muddying the waters with decoupling STR from KA, No Range damage. I may be less extreme than Doc in that my goal would be to price the components of STR (and other characteristics) at a level which equates the characteristic's price to the price of its component parts. If we went all the way to Doc's model, then we might also have sample powers where you buy all the component parts with Unified Power to create the characteristic. CON can stay as is. CON rolls are rare enough that they don't need separate pricing. Or, if you must, STUNned resistance costs 4 CP per +5 and +1 CON rolls cost 1 point. DEX, INT, PRE each provide two key benefits. Price them at 2 CP each. Each provides "+1 to all of these rolls" (not counting Perception). That's 5 CP, and replaces Skill Levels. For 3 CP, the +1 applies only to one relevant roll at any given time. For +1, it only applies to one specific roll (replacing +1 to a skill for 2 CP). For 2 CP, it can be +1 to one roll within a related group of rolls. For 4 CP, it enhances all rolls in a related group at once. For 5 CP, you get +5 Lightning Reflexes. Limit for applying only to certain actions. For 5 CP, you get +1d6 PRE attacks. Limit if only certain types of PRE attacks are enhanced. For 5 CP, you get +1 to all Perception rolls. For 4 CP, it's all rolls in a targeting sense group. 3 CP gets is all rolls in a sense group with no targeting senses, or one targetting sense. 2 CP gets only one non-targeting sense. Ego remains 1 point. +1 to all EGO rolls costs 2 CP. 1 CP for only one type of EGO roll (only to Push?). The remaining 3 CP is resistance to Mental and Presence attacks. Limit to taste (maybe you are only hard to Mind Control, but much easier to trick with mental illusions or scan with telepathy or mind scan). If we follow Doc's approach, it is consistent with Steve Long's decision not to retain the link to figured characteristics but reprice the primaries to reflect the real cost/value of the Figureds. Many of the building blocks already exist, as people have devised ways to buy just some effects of many characteristics over the years, but these "just some" effects are typically priced very high compared to the characteristics themselves. Oh, and maybe we also get more realistic that ED only against Fire is NOT 2/3 of the value of unlimited ED, and crank up those limitations to be priced more reasonably.

If you read GoldenAge's linked magic system, he has specifically altered that for his system.

The skill levels issue is not dissimilar to Figured Characteristics. Buying up the components of a characteristic increase was, and is, much more expensive than buying up the characteristic. That carries the same incentive to inflate characteristics. Given the Hero mantra is to get what you pay for and pay for what you get, this is a significant inconsistency in the system. As to lower CVs, like lower DEX and lower SPD, it's all relative. That really slow Super likely does have a combat level or three (the 18 - 20 DEX bricks did, and dropping them to 8 - 10 DEX would not change that). But a 5 OCV hits a 5 DCV just as often as an 8 OCV hits an 8 DCV, so that relativism remains. But this would allow those Agents to hit with more frequency (and see their lower-DC attacks bounce off) instead of having ti kit out near-Super VIPER agents to make a dozen or two at least a bit of a challenge. 23 DEX was the default, if not in the 1e example characters, certainly by the time we read the first Enemies book. But we had no indication that 23 was well beyond an above-average to exceptional human in 1e! As players, we didn't think our typical Energy Projector was an olympic-class gymnast or had an OCV and DCV comparable to Bruce Lee.

That depends on how competent you make the thugs and gangsters. The heroes certainly got hit, but very seldom shot. If thighs have SPD 2, then our Super can Dodge when the guns come out, then attack in the phases the thugs don't act in. Only to fall to a blow to the head from behind - EVERYONE was KO'd by that cowardly blow from behind!

So, how does the player get that Fireball into his VPP or Multipower? I'm still not clear how that VPP works with an unlimited max AP - why buy a control cost at all? If he has a 60 point pool in a VPP (for a 150 point character, even 60 points invested with no control cost is a lot), he needs -5 in limitations to get that 240 AP spell in. He can't possibly benefit from the full 240 AP, though. He'll need the same -5 in limitations to squish it into a Multipower, but now he also pays either 6 points for a fixed slot or 12 for a flexible slot. He's paid for a ton of AP that he can't actually use. Seems pretty frustrating for the player.

Absolutely - and those benchmarks were set in 1e Champions, with no guidance as to "normal human", just "base normal has 10s and base figureds". Normal Human showed up in Justice Inc., Espionage and especially Fantasy Hero (where "stats generally cap at 20" made D&D characters' 3-18 more comparable). At 4e (when the systems were first unified), backwards compatibility could have been tossed in favour of rebalancing "normal human" stats for this unified, all-genres system. That was probably the last real possibility. I'll go you one better - drop all DEX by 9 - 10, and all SPD by 2. That drops really slow Supers from 18-20 DEX, 4 SPD to 8-10 DEX, 2 SPD. Average Supers fall from 23-26 DEX, 5-6 SPD to 13 - 17 DEX, 3-4 SPD. Fast characters go from 29-30 DEX, 6-7 SPD to 19-20 DEX, 4-5 SPD. And the Superhumanly Agile go from 32-35 DEX, 7-8 SPD to 23-26 DEX, 5-6 SPD. And we actually have room to make Massively superhuman speed and agility go even higher. If everyone drops the same, more or less, they interact with each other pretty much unchanged. Base VIPER agents can be DEX 13, SPD 2 - 3. A little less behind the curve. Elite Agents can have DEX 18, SPD 3 - 4. Agents become at least a bit more viable.

Oh, some other big ones for true GA (much once WW II starts): Government and authority are solid and trustworthy. That goes for police, military - all civil authority. Any who are not are foreign infiltrators, and they are extremely rare. Those foreign governments of enemy powers, though, are vile and evil, and that permeates down to virtually everyone fighting on the Other Side. The Supers are on the home front by whatever contrivance is necessary (Supes was locked out of service because, when he tried to enlist, he accidentally read the eye chart in the next room due to his X-Ray vision, and was 4F for lousy eyesight). The REAL heroes are the soldiers fighting overseas, and the Supers can never overshadow that. Remember that the USSR is on our side - Uncle Joe (Stalin) is a standup guy that you'd be happy to see your daughter date!

You could drop SPD to 4 if most opponents are thugs and gangsters anyway (and if "Super" opponents are comparable). 15 - 20 STR and some brawling/boxing martial arts to get into the 6-8 DC realm would cover most Golden Age Supers. The real issue may be the power disparity. Lots of brawlers, many with one or two gimmicks (Sandman's Gas Gun; Shining Knight's winged horse; Hawkman's wings) but a few virtually omnipotent characters (the Spectre; Dr. Fate; Superman). For true GA (and SA), the heroes weren't overly challenged by combat - opponents were hard to locate and pin down, or were one-trick ponies, so once the hero figured out how they were avoiding detection/eluding capture or determined the workaround to their one trick, a punch in the jaw ended the adventure. Even more so for the true super-powered characters like Superman, Namor, Human Torch, Spectre, etc. That would not sit well with a lot of gamers, so many GA games really take their inspiration from Bronze Age stories set in the GA, like All-Star Squadron and Invaders, with Supers level opponents.

First off, I really like this presentation. It shows how viable a game based on the Hero system is. The mechanics are referenced, but behind the scenes. The one item that stuck out for me was the Attunement rules - this seems like it will hold all Mundane characters out of using magic items. Unless the intent is that all characters will have magic affinity that grows as the character gains experience, this seems problematic. Not sure how I feel about "no AP cap in frameworks". How is the VPP Control cost calculated if we ditch the AP cap? Also, a spell with long-lasting or far-reaching effects that can be cast outside of combat becomes a lot easier to access. I can pile on Gestures, Incantations, Concentration, Extra Time (or take extra time for skill roll bonuses), 1 charge (do I need it more than once a day?), etc. to make access to those spells a lot easier. I'm thinking of effects like slow fade Aid or Teleportation. In fact, even raising the dead, the example wizard's goal, becomes a lot easier if I am prepared to require Extra Time of 1 hour and spend a week or more casting it for skill roll bonuses... I've also never liked "buying this up requires special GM permission". All point use is subject to GM oversight. If it's tough to buy up Magical Affinity after the game starts, then I'm incented to sacrifice all other Build aspects to max that out at the start, instead of letting it grow as the character grows. It's already a pretty pricy Power Skill at 3 points per +1. The Critical Fail also seems very non-variable. SMACK - you take some damage and an extra effect. Even if you could only fail on an 18, it's the same result as if you could only succeed on a 3 and rolled a 14. Minor issues, though - the overall feel seems pretty solid. A slate of Orders would be essential to a vibrant and diverse campaign, but that seems to be the expectation anyway. Or the players contribute to worldbuilding with their own Orders.

I think having guidelines for "normal" characteristics is useful in itself. The biggest issue that creates in Hero is that these were defined well after "standard Champions builds" were largely hardcoded into the milieu. Once a slow Super is defined as DEX 18-20, SPD 4; average is 23 - 26 DEX, SPD 5-6, fast is 29-30 DEX, 6-7 SPD and really fast is 32-35 DEX and 7+ SPD, it's a little late to say "oh, and normal humans generally cap out at DEX 20/SPD 4". Those larger than life characters have had appearances in the comics, and they are not "slow super" by comparison. There's also a difference between having expectations of "normal humans" and giving points out for specific spending. Setting those as the characteristic expectations is one thing. Allowing 20 points of disadvantages for "has most or all characteristics within this range" makes no sense to me. All it means is, if your concept keeps you in this range, you take this disadvantage because you already decided to have stats that allow it. If not, you don't take the disadvantage. I would not allow 10 points for "no mental powers" or 5 points for "can't buy flight, gliding or teleport". Why would I allow 20 points for "character is based on powers and skills instead of characteristics?". Especially when we tack on "characteristics bought with limitations are powers and not restricted by NCM". When we define peak humans as Primaries top off at 20, rarely a bit higher, and SPD caps at 4, maybe a rare 5, then allow Batman as a "highly trained normal" with STR 25, CON 23, DEX 26-29 and SPD 6-7, as a normal human, then we haven't really defined "normal humans" as fitting into those normal ranges. We've also set the bar a lot higher to be "superhuman". When Green Lantern (normal guy with Power RIng) and the like have to have DEX 23-26 and SPD 5-6, we've defined that normal humans don't really cap out at 20/4 - these characters are not just "not superhuman" in the comics - they are not even "exceptional human" in those stats. Batman, Tarzan, Conan and Doc Savage are better - they're "exceptional/peak human".

I agree with ditching NCM. However, when the game sets 21-30 as "legendary" and 20 as "peak normal", I'd expect Batman to be in the 20 range. And he should be stronger than the Flash, Green Lantern and Green Arrow. Any character without "beyond human normal" strength. He should be more agile and faster than GL, GA, Aquaman and Cyborg. DEX was the big killer for "trained normal" characters. His SPD should be at or above any character who is not a speedster or otherwise hyperfast. The problem is created by "standard Supers" needing to be above "peak human" (not just "average human") to be remotely competitive.

Largely why 23 became "default DEX". That CSL with all HTH OR Range does not help Batman's martial arts and batarangs. Even if it did, for 6 points (9 CP for +3 DEX - 3 CP saved on SPD), you get +1 OCV and +1 DCV. 5 points to have one at a time, that drops whenever you don't have a zero phase action to use them, is not comparable pricing. 8 points compared to 10 points for +1 OCV and +1 DCV isn't exactly a bargain either. The Mayfair DC game used the Hero logarithmic scale, but every +1 was a doubling. 2 points was a Normal. Not a lot of granularity for those normals, but then having variations in Hero make little difference to actual play, so the granularity here is largely an illusion. The designer notes commented on Batman having a 5 STR because, while it could put his maximum lift a bit unrealistically high, it wasn't vastly out of human capability, and -well - He's Batman! In a game, we likely don't allow a DCV so high that credible opponents need to roll a 3 to hit. Martial Artists don't need huge END. Reduced END is an option to massive END and REC (and, at least pre-6e, more cost effective - although recall that 1e was +1/4 for each halving, so 9 - 16 DCs was +1 1/4 to cost no END).

How do you figure out which, if any, are the few stats you want to boost up without assessing all of them from the perspective of your concept? Pre-6e, a lot of lower DEX characters looked to skill levels because their CVs would not be competitive in the campaign. Someone had to create the 5 point DCV level because there was no way to directly buy up DCV. I don't think that was less complicated than having OCV and DCV as separate stats, figured or not. Having them as stats would have highlighted just how big a bargain DEX was. You are clearly arguing for retaining some form of Figured stats. Would you suggest repricing of the stats to remove the bargain pricing of STR, CON and DEX, make selling back more than one Figured balanced and allow characters who buy up Figured rather than the primary stat to be point-efficient? Like unclevlad, I question your starting stats. This suggests that every Super should be able to bench press a Buick. Should the Human Torch have a 25 STR? That's in the realm of Legendary strength - some would asset that Batman and Captain America (as "peak humans") should not be up there in the Legendary realm. Others would suggest maybe it's OK for Cap (due to the Serum) and/or Bats (with that obsessive training), but not for Nightwing or Hawkeye. STR was often bought higher than "concept" because the figured stats made it more cost-effective to do so. CON is already Legendary for most Supers, necessitated by defense limits and the STUN mechanic. Maybe the main purpose of CON should be resistance to being stunned, not buying up several other stats at a discount. DEX being linked to CV meant that peak human dexterity was the entry point for any Super. If you wanted to be good at combat, you needed a higher DEX (or stupidly expensive combat skill levels as a substitute). Again, the Batman conundrum. If Bats has a 30 DEX (and so do Hawkeye, Green Arrow, Black Widow, Daredevil and so on), SpiderMan and Nightcrawler should be around 45, as they are much more agile than even the highest-trained human. ninja-bear notes mCVs below. I think the biggest failing of character updates in 6e was not dropping a lot of DEXes where the character wasn't super-agile by concept, but rather just needed DEX to have a competitive DCV. DEX could then range like STR, with some characters right down at a 10. How many characters with a 20 - 26 DEX have any comment in their writeups about their peak human to legendary agility? If my character is a normal person with powers, and I stat him out with an above-average STR, CON and DEX of, say, 13, 13 and 14, and assume those Figured are good enough (maybe invest 6 points and round SPD up to 3) I will have a very disappointing character who will rarely move, and be Stunned when most phases come up. But so what, he can't hit anyway. Setting OCV and DCV ranges and benchmarks is no harder than setting ranges and benchmarks for anything else in the game. Many other games handle this by providing no way, or very limited options, to boost "secondary characteristics", but they are still there. D&D 3e has AC, attack bonus (melee and range), damage bonus, hit point bonus, 3 saving throw bonuses, extra skills, skill bonuses, spell DC bonuses and so on. Having them all derived from 6 stats isn't the end of the story - you can buy some aspects up with Feats. And many players chafe against the limits on their ability to customize a character - Hero's core strength. We could limit Hero to only a few Characteristics with a quick nomenclature change, moving resistance to being Stunned, bonuses to CV, increased defenses, durability (higher STUN), Tirelessness (higher END), bouncing back (higher REC) and extra actions (higher SPD) to powers and skills. We already have rules for increased skill and perception bonuses (levels), initiative (lightning reflexes), HTH damage (Hand Attack) and PRE attacks and defense outside the "Characteristics" section. Just move all the Figured there and suddenly we have less characteristics. But we really don't - just like including running, swimming and leaping as "powers" doesn't prevent you from calling them characteristics. With 20/20 hindsight, I think oMCV and dMCV should have started at zero - normal people have no skill in either. That would eliminate the "I have no mental powers, so I should sell back mOCV" issue. How is a person with no mental powers somehow "deficient" if they have lower mOCV?

Why didn't he get a PhD?

To the original question, I would say that the answer is neither. If properly priced, Figured can work, as can "no figured". I think what is needed is better guidance on appropriate levels of these characteristics, as unclevlad notes. I agree with Steve Long's conclusion in making 5e. If the secondary characteristics are properly priced, then there is no great benefit repricing primaries to have them add to secondary characteristics. In many other games, the primaries are the only way to buy up secondary abilities. A lock like that would violate the core Hero principal that you can build what you want. 6e pushed that further by removing the link between some characteristics. The most common example is DEX no longer driving combat values, so now you can easily build an agile rogue who is not great in combat, and there is no costing disincentive to a low-DEX combatant with high OCV and DCV,

I've never seen the FF comparison before - a lot of people analogize them to the X-men (unusual appearances; leader an intellectual in a wheelchair), but the FF were out long enough before the Doom Patrol that they could have been created in response.

Well, yes and no. Imagine a player who brings his first Super into the game. He's a big, tough Brick with a 75 STR and a 40 CON - big and burly, so he has 20 BOD. How will that player feel after his first game if he assumed that the relationship between primaries and figured would provide a good playable character, so his powerful Brick has 15 PD, 8 ED, 23 REC, 80 END and 78 STUN. He may manage OK with the END and REC, but after the first 12d6 Punch gets 27 STUN past his defenses, and a slightly above-average Blast gets 41 STUN through, leaving him both Stunned and down to 10 STUN remaining, he may not think those ratios are all that great. He's also likely to find that his 20 DEX, 7 OCV and DCV and 3 SPD are not all that spectacular either. So I will submit that, at least in 6e, he would have known that he should consider buying up those secondary characteristics, and might have asked for some guidance on how high they should be.

For the same cost, the character can have 21 STR. Is STR too inexpensive? That same 11 points would boost him to 8 PD, 7 ED - are defenses too inexpensive? Or it would buy 1/2 END on STR 25, also highly effective in reducing the impact of END on his staying power. Is reduced END too inexpensive? Let's look to your pricing. He likely already has 20 CON, so 40 END and 6 REC, and he saved 5 on STUN. That cost an extra 10 points since you would raise the price of CON to 2 points (but other characters also have to pay for higher CON unless they want to be frequently Stunned). So he has paid an extra 5 points after the savings on STUN. For 2 points, he gets +6 END, and 4 more buys +10 REC. That's one more point cost than the model you describe as "too inexpensive".

BINGO! Figured characteristics were overpriced in 5e and that contributed greatly to STR and CON inflation. Was your experience different? Did you see a lot of characters (say a third or a quarter) making significant investments in STUN, END and REC? I didn't! In a Supers game, I rarely if ever saw under 13 STR and 23 CON, so 8 REC. And I did see Blasters with that 8 REC, Force Fields, Flight and 12 DC attacks. They virtually all had Reduced END on some or all of those abilities. If you wanted more END and REC, +10 CON (20 points) got 20 END (10 points) + 2 REC (4 points) +2 ED (reduce Force Field to compensate; 2 points) and +5 STUN (sell it back if you don't need more STUN), so it was marginally cheaper to be harder to stun. But CRT is looking at Heroic. If END was such a massive limiter in 5e and prior editions, what motivated creating the Long-Term END rules? But I will suggest that 45 END and 10 REC looks like "very high physical stats character". Enforce some campaign limits. Or, if you don't, I'd expect that burly Warrior to have at least a 23-25 STR and some extra Running. Tack on a 4 SPD and he's spending 24 END a turn (assuming half moves on average). He'll make it into Turn 3 - so a bit over 30 seconds of intense combat. Or, for the 11 points spent, use 6 to make STR half END, 4 for REC 8 and 1 for 25 END. Now he spends about 12 END per turn and lasts well into the fourth turn. Even with 6e pricing, that Heroic character is better off with reduced END.

Thanks, Google - Virtual Table Top, so miniatures for online play

45 END and 10 REC seem light for Supers and high for Heroic, but not unreasonable for a very physically fit character. How much END will that character spend? IIRC, STR is 1/5 in Heroic, so that very fit character likely spends 4 per phase, and might have a 3 or 4 SPD. Tack on an average of 1 END per phase for movement and he's spending 15 - 20 END per turn. He can last a long time. When did you last read about Conan getting too tired to go on because combat dragged out for a whole MINUTE? For that same "dirt cheap" cost, though, he could make his STR 0 END with a point left over. Let's put that in REC. He spends 4 END per turn and recovers 5. Now, which one will be better off when he recovers from -3 STUN? I think you missed CRT's point - he's paying for extra END and REC on top of the base. 20 base END +5 CP for +25 END = 45. 4 base REC + 6 CP for +10REC = 10 REC. When we move to Supers, 6 END a phase for a 60 AP attack plus 2-3 END for movement with a 5-6 SPD burns through 45 END fast. At an average of, say, 8 END per phase and a 5 SPD, he's out of steam half way through the second turn. He'll need to invest, say, 10 CP in END (now he has 70) and maybe build that REC up to 15 (so 11 points). Now he can at least make it through 2 turns, at a cost of 21 points. He could instead have half END on that attack (so 15 points, assuming no limitations) spend 4 on END (40) but he only has 2 left for REC of 6. Spending 5 END a phase, he'll almost make it through 2 turns. When END cost 1/2 points and REC cost 2 points? Reduced END was a no-brainer if your base Figured END and REC weren't enough.

I agree with Steve Long's call that END batteries' END is worth more than straight END as it does not disappear on being KOd, and REC is limited. Whether the ratios are right is another question. So why doesn't everyone have enormous END? I still see plenty of Reduced END and few characters with massive END.

In my view, the reduced costs in 6e better reflect utility. It was rare at best to see anyone buy STUN, REC or END rather than just buy more stats that provided Figured. Even without Figured, do you want +1 REC (to get back 1 STUN and END from a recovery) or defenses and reduced END? How often did anyone say "I run out of END too fast - I'll buy more END and REC" instead of "I'll slap on reduced END"? Fixing the price of these abilities was also factored into the possible retention of Figured. CON at 2 points makes more sense if +10 CON gets you +2 ED (2 CP), +2 REC (2 CP), +5 STUN (2.5 CP) and +20 END (4 CP) for a total of 10.5 CP instead of 21 CP. STR is the toughest one due to the link to damage. I think it should add to (or be the base method of obtaining) HTH damage. Damage with no range costs 10 points per 3d6. We just need to assess what else you get for the extra 5 CP paid for STR. If the system were less generous with thrown objects of opportunity, Lift would not be as valuable. Start with "no one is proficient at throwing a car so -3 OCV", add in penalties for throwing bulky non-aerodynamic objects; give large objects OCV bonuses instead of AoE ("SpiderDude nimbly leaps through one window of the bus and out a window on the other side"). We have Martial maneuvers to trip, disarm, etc. at range. Put some work into defining the use of normal combat maneuvers with ranged attacks. What stops a character from Blasting a target's feet out from under him (Trip), Pushing the target back rather than targeting for damage (Shove; Throw), Blasting out of a gGrab or Entangle (Escape) or Blasting the gun out of the target's hand (Disarm)? In addition to a bit of leveling of the playing field with STR, we get more tactical and cinematic options in combat. So for one point, DEX boosts all DEX rolls and provides initiative in combat? Basically, adding SPD reduces the cost of DEX by 1 point. I prefer just buying SPD direct, especially with no other Figured's. The only way I see DEX, INT and PRE at 1 point each comes with a BIG reduction to the costs of buying their effects separately. +1 to all DEX rolls (with no initiative) and +5 Lightning Reflexes (with no DEX roll increase) should combine to a cost comparable to +5 DEX (with no SPD boost). This is just math. If +10 CON gets +2 REC (2 CP) + 5 STUN (2.5 CP) and +20 END (6.67 CP at 3 END per CP), so 11.17 points of Figured, the actual resistance to being STUNned and occasional other effect is costing 8.83 points. Overall, I would also say there is no "No Figured" limitation - you can just sell back the Figureds. If the base stat is limited, reduce the points recovered from any sellbacks using the same limitation. Again, skill levels need to be fixed to align with the stat costs. 3 points for +1 to any CHAR based skill roll at a time is highway robbery when I can pay 5 points for +1 to all those rolls at once (complementary skills, anyone?) AND get all the other benefits of +5 to the stat. I would also remove PRE def from PRE. So what to mOCV and mDCV cost? And why isn't OCV and DCV linked to a stat? I would leave EGO at one point, but it would also be the PRE Def stat. Strong-willed people are harder to PRE attack. If +10 BOD adds +10 STUN (5 CP) and 2 REC (2 CP), BOD is pretty cheap at 1 point, don't you think? How do we reprice END batteries under this model? At 6e pricing, buying up REC and END instead of buying reduced END was viable, but it still isn't common. That suggests, to me, that END is not as underpriced as you suggest. Increase the price of END and I should probably look at more REC and/or reduced END. What is a standard character's starting STUN, REC and END under your model? Is there a base + Figured, or does a Normal have 4 REC (1/5 CON and 1/5 BOD), 15 STUN (BOD + 1/2 CON) and 20 END (2x CON)? That's only STUN that changes, of course.

If this is an automaton, your players may find 18 DEF too high. Seriously, if we limited Superman to the defenses of steel, we wouldn't be close to Champions guidelines. Like anything else this is SFX for the level of challenge desired.