Hugh Neilson

If we broke all the abilities of characteristics out and priced them independently, would we actually need characteristics at all? To use STR as an example, we could price "doubled lifting" and "+1 DC with all HTH maneuvers". We already price all the former Figured and Leaping. STR could then be eliminated. Alternatively, it could be presented as a group of attributes with "Unified Power". DEX provides skill roll bonuses and initiative. Price Lightning Reflexes at +1 Initiative/1 point (with reduced pricing/limitations if it is restricted). Price +1 on all rolls based on agility or hand/eye coordination at 5 points and there's the other half of DEX. Drop that down to 3 points for one type of roll at a time, or 1 for any single roll based on those attributes. Fill it out with 4 points for all rolls in a related group, and 2 for any one roll in that related group. This reprices or replaces skill levels. PRE and INT get similar treatment for rolls. +1 PRE attack costs 5 points as does +1 to all PER rolls. Limit either to taste. This also suggests INT and PRE cost 2, not 1, point under the current structure. EGO can be +2 PRE defense for 1 point (PRE defense becomes exclusively EGO), +2 to EGO rolls for 3 points and +5 "mental power resistance" for 2 points. That's 10 points for the equivalent of +10 EGO. CON would require pricing CON rolls and defense against being stunned, but CON rolls are pretty infrequent, so just call CON the defense against being stunned and let the rolls lie. Figured provided by CON were +2 ED, +2 REC, +5 STUN and +10 END, so 21 points. 10 CON cost 1 point less and provided CON rolls and resistance to being stunned. In fairness, however, REC, STUN and END were overpriced. How often did characters buy those up rather than buying more STR or CON? The 6e repricing solves some of that issue. As you note, rounding is another issue. Consideration could also be given to whether OCV and DCV should be priced at 5 points each. But DEX was the huge winner in 5. STR has its own issues, made more complex by interaction with other ways to increase DCs. Perhaps we should price +1 DC with all attacks, all ranged or HTH attacks, and more limited (such as HA's only damage, not other effects like holds and disarms). This could then be used for repricing MA DCs (recalling that sweet 0 END), Deadly Blow et. al. If we reprice INT at 2 points, then +5 would get +1 with INT rolls and PER rolls. You could buy +1 with non-PER or +1 with PER for 5 points. Agility replaces Skill Rolls in my model, and Quickness is just Lightning Reflexes. DEX combines both. I would not combine PRE and EGO - con artists need not be strong-willed, for example. But I would remove being cool under pressure (PRE defense) from being charismatic and move it to strength of will, etc. defined by EGO. The two combined would cost 3 points for +2 under my model. I could go either way with costing addressed, but once all the component parts are fairly costed, is there a need to bundle so many together? Steve's logic makes sense to me, but I think presenting examples of the abilities bundled together, and/or guidelines of what other abilities might also be relevant to specific high characteristics, would also have made sense. But a very healthy, fit character with low END and REC doesn't seem to make sense for Heroic or SuperHeroic.

I like this balanced analysis. At one point in the SETAC discussions, I think Steve noted he could have repriced the Primaries, and “No Figured” limitations to keep the relation with Figureds, but why bother once we had fair pricing for Figured? If we want Figured back, it's not that hard to house rule it back in, but both the stats and No Figured need to be priced properly, and any sellback on characteristics with limitations also becomes challenging, as do limitations. I'd like to see the pricing of DEX, INT and PRE reassessed, probably 2 points each with 5 points being +1 DEX/INT/PRE rolls and the remainder lightning reflexes/+1 PER/+1d6 PRE attack. PRE defense would move entirely to EGO and be half of its 1 point cost, the remainder being resistance to mental effects and EGO rolls. I keep toying with pricing "floating DCs" as well to rationalize things like MA DCs, Hand Attack and Deadly Blow et. al. Limited STR? Limited Skill Levels? Not sure which makes the better model.

The OAF can be disarmed or broken and, while replaceable, can't be replaced in combat and generally takes some time outside combat. A typical OIF is much harder to target in combat, but if broken or removed, takes similar time to replace. A Weapon of Opportunity is more easily disarmed than a typical OIF, but also much easier to replace than a typical OIF or an OAF. To me, that suggests the -1/2 limitation is reasonable.

Quite a few years back, Mark Waid commented in an interview that his ability to revitalize The Flash at DC Comics was successful only because it was a poor seller. He could experiment because DC didn't have much to lose. At the time of the interview, he had moved on, and the character (and his book) was a big seller. The company would never allow any radical change to a successful book. When the MCU started out, expectations for Supers films weren't that high. When Star Wars was first released, expectations for science fiction weren't that high. In both cases, like Mark Waid's Flash, the creators had pretty free rein. Once the franchise is successful, the willingness to take risks drops markedly.

As I recall 1e-2e, everyone had 3 or 4 30 point Hunteds (so 75 - 90 points; they did not really show up 25% of the time) and a lot of Psych/personality disadvantages. There was a lot of filler, often with the GM just tying Hunteds into expected campaign adversaries rather than adding them on to the scenario.

^e V1 p 228 offers this parachute. That seems like a decent baseline - falls at 20 m/segment and still takes falling damage based on that speed seems more limited than 12m down/1m forward.

The conventional build for something like a parachute has historically been limited gliding. This sounds very similar.

Sure. But I also look for the builds to be reasonable based on other constructs. I'd be inclined to agree that END once per turn is probably more than +1/4, which leaves +1/2. However, absent an autofire concept, I would not take the advantage past +1/2. Paying END once per minute isn't much worse than paying no END at all, but it's not better. STR adds to your no range eye poke Flash or your "throwing sand/gravel in his eyes" flash. A dusty room has a lot less impact on your eyes than wind-blown dust in a storm. No more a stretch than SFX I see for a lot of other abilities.

I see no reason that HKA should be the sole power to which STR can be added. If adding STR to a Blast, Drain, Entangle or even RKA is a problem, adding it to an HKA is also a problem. The math shows that it is priced at +1/2, so using that price makes sense. If it is an issue, it is also an issue for HKA. If not, then it should not be any more an issue for other attacks. Agreed that this issue has been dissected before, and does not need to be dissected again here. For another comparable, we could pump Valak's MP up to 240 AP, lower his STR to 10 and add a +90 STR, half END slot to the MP (probably have to sacrifice the focus limitation on 113 of the MP pool so he can use STR without the halberd, but I doubt that would set him back the 113 points he saved on STR. Now his STR can effectively augment any attack in the MP.

25 STR with STR adds would add 5d6 and cost 15 points. That's cheaper than another 5d6 Blast. With an 8d6 Blast, it costs 20 points to add 5d6. Still a bit of a discount. But 15 STR means it's break even with a 6d6 Blast and only 3d6 for 20 points with an 8d6 Blast. STR adding to HKA is an orphan mechanic. There's a logic to it, but it's also inconsistent with "pay for what you get and get what you pay for". We've had a few discussions on that in the past, so let's not derail this thread. Hmmm...other than to note the reason has always been "D&D players' heads will explode if STR doesn't boost HKA damage automatically. The solution is a more complex build for gear purchased with cash instead of points. However, in 5e, many D&D weapons can have increased damage from DEX instead of STR - do we also need to parallel that in Hero, or should we accept that they are two different games with different underlying assumptions? The first sounds like a variant of half END, maybe a bit advantageous is some cases. What happens if I use the power in one phase, and then use something else? No END cost? Do we track so I pay END next time I use it (even if that is next turn, or even next week)? What if I use it for a Multiple Attack? No END this phase, or pay for every second use? For +1/2, I could make it 0 END, so why would I pay +1/2 to pay END once a turn? Anything over that falls into the "autofire issue", which I assume is why you cap this at +1 (although spending END every 5 minutes may as well be 0 END anyway).

It's interesting to see the evolution of gaming. D&D evolved from wargames, so the early adversarial approach probably should not be surprising. The "DM vs Player" model also encouraged a PvP model as each player worked to increase their character's power, to the possible detriment of their allies. The game has evolved considerably from competitive to collaborative over the years/decades. Many of the early D&D modules were constructed around convention tournaments, where every group ran the same pre-fab characters with a "survive and loot" model for victory. One of the old A-series (Slave Lords; A3 I think) was just two nine-room linear tournament dungeons connected with a bit of story. One had to believe magic lead to insanity, as there were a huge number of dungeon complexes created by mad wizards. I've never been a convention-goer, but my wife and I recently participated in D&D in a Castle, where each DM constructed a mini-campaign for their players. Our DM (Nerdarchist Ted Adams, if anyone cares to know) stated, well before the actual games, that his job was to create an awesome adventure tailored to the players' preferences. It was a great three days, and a far cry from a competitive tournament environment. The evolution from "Players vs DM and each other" to "a game everyone enjoys" is likely a big part of the survival of the hobby overall, and differentiates it from online games and computer games.

I suspect many players would. However, if the style of character you want to play is one who is focused on caution in combat to protect bystanders, that more reactive style may (and I stress MAY) be acceptable. An alternative approach for the specific "want to be able to deflect" would be to act at DEX 1, Segment 2, which is just before that 5 SPD character could have acted. Throughout Segments 3 and 4, you can then watch the flow of combat to either Abort your Phase 4 or use it to Deflect, moving at DEX 1 on Phase 4 if nothing comes up. While this feels very reactive, if the alternative was a 5 SPD, you would have been potentially aborting at any time in Segments 1 and 2 and, if you wanted to be proactive in Segment 3, risking an inability to react/abort for the rest of the segment. You'd be Holding the Segment 12 action to keep your options open in Segment 1, though. That costs 10 points. How much is it worth to be able to act at your DEX on Segment 3, then abort later in Segment 3 and have no further ability to react for the rest of the turn? The "end of segment" issue is problematic to me as well - no one runs around saying "LAST CALL FOR SEGMENT 7". That's a compromise for smoother game play, of course. I'm not sure that telling the reactive player "Segment 2, DEX 1" so they can act just before Segment 3 starts is any worse than "OK, you can have one Abort per turn between your action and the end of the segment, or any other time - so if you use than in Segment 5, we need to track it right to the end of the turn as you can't do it again until next turn." Of course, you could Abort after moving in Segment 12, then Abort again in Segment 1, right? Something that extreme wouldn't be useful all that often, of course. One option, whether house rule or with a cost, would be to remove the "no Aborts in the same segment you moved" restriction. You move at DEX 29, Segment 3 with your 5 SPD and need to act fast to save a civilian, so you Abort your Ph 5 action and won't get another move (Abort or not) until DEX 29, Ph 8. This seems no more damaging to the game than allowing a person to attack, then move, an approach we have played without anything breaking the game. As for setting a cost, if +1 SPD would allow you to do all this plus so much more, is it fair to set a more restrictive (one free abort only to deflect) ability at a higher price? If we're slapping a +2 advantage to +1 SPD (so 30) to get an Abort out of the SPD chart once per turn, and a -2 Limitation (only to deflect), so 10 points, is that more valuable than a 6 SPD which could have simulated that for a more tactically-minded player (who could also use that extra phase for a lot more - e.g. "oh, he's stunned/halved DCV? I'll take advantage of that 0.1 DEX later!)? No answers - just thoughts to consider.

I think it is important to discuss what the character could do, and how this will work, with the player. Let's assume a 5 SPD. This one "abort whenever you want" phase will allow a once per turn abort to deflect/reset the multiple block penalty. +1 SPD would allow one more phase to take any action, including abort to deflect, Holding actions to the end of a phase will minimize the times when an Abort to Deflect is not possible. As LoneWolf notes, skill levels to Deflect will reduce the impact of the "multiple deflect" penalties. It sounds like the player is not expert in the mechanics, and may appreciate a better understanding of the options more than any "instant abort" mechanism.

By the book, he also has to spend END on constant powers every segment.

It feels like these were drafts, well before Champs III, many of which made it in, many with modifications presumably arsing from the playtesting, and some name changes. I recall that Multiform example from 3e, so gut feel is that it did not change much. The others were changed considerably more, but the concepts were included.

I don't think it is wholly unreasonable for the player to envision the character needing to react after having taken an action other than deflection in his or her previous phase. "I'll just do nothing, just in case something needs deflecting later" seems less than heroic and, more importantly, very boring for the player.

It may have evolved into the more general Casual Strength.

As you could play with no DisadPlications and only lose 75 points, they are not worth more. You simply take less, and therefore only the ones core to the character. That was a deliberate design change from Steve Long.

The only real difference is nomenclature. Pre-6e, we might say characters had 100 points + up to 75 points in DisadPlications (thanks to @Duke Bushido for that term). In 6e, the character instead has 75 points of DisadPlications and 175 points. The character can give up some of those points to reduce the required DisadPlications. I rarely saw players take less than the maximum in 5e, nor do they tend to buy down complications in 6e. I typically describe two facets of DisadPlications. The more often issues arise, the greater the points. The greater the impact when it does arise, the greater the points. A minor but frequent inconvenience might have the same value as a rare but devastating DisadPlication.

A lot of those made their way into later products. That Multiform was in Champions III, I believe.

I was envisioning this as comparable to early-edition package deals. For example, 35 points worth of skills and abilities and 15 points of Disadvantages/Complications for a net cost of 20 points. If the character can pay 20 points for the package deal, then take a further 75 points of Complications, he has received 15 more points than the character who took no package deals. If he has to pay 35 points for the package deal abilities, still have 75 points of other complications and suck up another 15 points of complications, I'm with Doc D - why would he take a package deal? He can leave off one skill (can't be a Skrull Infiltrator without 3 points of AK: Skrull Throneworld - oh dear, no package deal for me...) and, should he be so inclined, pick that missing skill up later with xp. He could even take the Skrull Infiltrator complications - just toss them on as part of his 75 points of complications. To me, they should be complications just like any other complications.

That's a question of game design philosophy. Especially recalling that 6e is the first time we have seen maximum AP divorced from pool size, I'm not sold that this was (or was not) a design consideration. When I first read this, I had to remind myself that you started the thread. You want a special new variant for "a few big powers with variant limitations". Why would someone with fewer slots than they could technically receive for free not want some discount for not fully taking advantage of that versatility? First off, "Ultra" is earlier edition speak for "fixed", not for "variable". If I take -1 in limitations that can be changed between powers, what is the limitation for the less flexible arrangement where all powers have the same limitations? The one change that I think would be very reasonable for Multipowers would be a Variable Limitation on the pool if all slots have different limitations. If all of the slots had Variable Limitations totalling -1, then the pool would get the same -1/2 limitation as the slots. It seems reasonable that, where the limitations of each slot are fixed, this should save at least as many points on the pool as would be saved if every slot had Variable Limitations (and, to be clear, the slots would still get the full limitation since the individual slots can't vary their limitations. Turning the Multipower into "you get the point savings for limitations on the pool plus you get to squeeze more slots at the same time into the pool based on slot limitations" feels wrong ("feels" as I don't have the time to really dig into the meat of the math).

How many Champions characters had less than 2 Hunteds? Now, characters can take a Hunted if it's really important to the character. The other intended change is reflected in the nomenclature change from "disadvantages" to "complications". As I recall, Steve's goal was to move the needle from "these are bad things your GM can hit you over the head with, and you should work to minimize their impact" to "these are a tool for player agency - they should guide the GM to the kind of challenges you want your character to face". Disadvantages being a purely negative term, Complications being more neutral in tone. If it was unclear, all I was musing on was making this more consistent in presentation with "skills as powers" and "characteristics as powers". Practically, the option is not often taken as players want those 400 points, and 75 points of complications is not bad for fleshing out a Supers character anyway. I'll flip that around. Your "skrull infiltrator with no complications" has 20 less points to play around with than the Package Infiltrator, who reduced the cost of the package by 20 points. Let's see how many templates I can take to get free extra abilities - if I would have paid for enough of the package to cover the net cost, and I can live with the added complications, maybe I want to bulk up. In earlier editions, before there was a "maximum disadvantages" rule, we saw a lot of characters with well over 150 disadvantage points, held partially in check by the diminishing returns (first two of any category being full points, next two half, two after that only a quarter - as I recall, we relaxed that for unrelated psychological complications).

All that really changed is nomenclature. You can still choose to have less than, say, 75 points in complications, at the cost of having less than 400 points for abilities. Maybe there should just be a power called "Less Complications" - if you spend 75 of your 400 points on that, you don't need any complications. But then we'd get into questions of frameworks and limitations, which would create a mess (maybe it should be a fixed cost Perk?). I like the 6e decision to reduce complications so they can be more central to the character, and expected to come up a lot. When every Super on the team has 2 or 3 Hunted to pad out those 150 points, how often do those Hunteds show up? If on one had any Hunteds, would we have no adversary at this week's game?

I have not gone back to look at 6e specifically, but I thought it was always pretty clear that Multipowers are AP driven. That is, the pool needs enough AP for the slot(s) in use (contrast VPP where the real cost is used to 'fill' the pool but no limitation ever applies to the pool). Pre-6e, this made the VPP a bad fit for, say, the archer with an arrow for every situation. A 60 point Multipower pool would benefit from all the limitations on the bow and arrows (say -1) so the pool cost 30 and each fixed slot cost 3. The VPP would be 60 + control cost, so if you wanted to benefit from the pool, you needed Dual Arrow Archer to use 2 30 real point arrows every time. That control cost would start at 90, since you needed Cosmic. Assuming the same -1 limitations (and it should be higher as the powers are restricted), you were looking at 105 points - the Multipower only breaks even at 25 slots. If we adopted this option, how long before we need a further variant - "well, I should have 40 points of slots for my control cost, so if I only have four 80 AP powers, with -1 in limitations, I get ripped off because I only use 12 of my 40 points." You pay 40 for the pool so it can only use one slot at a time, but your multipower pool would only have been 40 points since it would be 80 with -1 in limitations. The bigger question might be the "limited powers available" limitation for the VPP. Given Attacks Only is vastly more flexible, "only these four attacks" seems like a pretty hefty limitation is warranted. I wonder if you could extrapolate something from the doubling rule - 1,2,4,8,...unlimited slots available. I agree that a fair comparison of Multipower to VPP requires Cosmic as the Multipower builds that in.