Hugh Neilson

I'm speculating, but I think the "no vehicle form" is a holdout from the "no automaton powers for PCs" rules, although those are now stop signs.  Note that an automaton is either still in combat or dead, where other characters can be knocked out.  What impact will a character who can generally only be defeated by being killed have on your game?  To me, that has to be thought through.  The 45 point Takes no STUN would allow the character to be disabled to the point hat it's basically out of combat, but it's not going to recover a few hours later in the villain's deathtrap.

I've played numerous characters who never needed to go first. They can weather an attack or two.  A friend I gamed with for years ran an "Overconfident - 20 Points" character.  I recall a session asking "What's your DCV?"  He replied "Um...four".  Another player yelped "FOUR - what's his DEX???"  The response was "His DEX is 23. His DCV could be as high as 8.   But I've never even HEARD of this clown - there's no way he's powerful enough to hurt me anyway."
 
I've also read numerous GM tirades about players who won't play to the tropes, and always open up with full-force attacks against unknown opponents.  Guess what? If showing restraint means generally losing the battle, the scenario in its entirety or even the character, then the players won't show restraint.  We all need to be playing the same game, and one of those tropes that goes hand in hand with "the Good Guys show restraint" is that the Good Guys may end up at a disadvantage because they show restraint, but they don't end up losers or corpses.
 
 
A lot of things that the Beast and Spider-Man do are superhuman feats of agility. Nothing Green Lantern does shows impressive agility.  Beast and Spidey have high DEX skills in general.
 
 
It's Rasputin's constitution, Hercules' strength, Bruce Lee martial arts and Casanova's charm.  LEGENDARY because it is vastly superior to the masses. Not " bit above the norm" or even "professional athlete".  Maybe "consistent winner of contests that establish the best in the world".
 
 
An average human is 8s across the board by the RAW. They use the sellbacks from 10 to buy some skills, maybe a stat or two above average, maybe even well above average.  That's defined. A 20 is about as good as a normal human gets - so stacking every NFL linebacker with 18 STR, DEX and CON? Not likely.  Exceeds 20?  LEGENDARY.  You might see a 23 or 25 once or twice in a generation.  A 30 will be remembered for generations.
 
The problem is that the very first group of Champions characters, way back in the first edition, set the bar that Supers - even "not all that unusual" Supers - have DEX of 18 minimum, much more often 23 - 26,and sometimes 30-35.  Then along came Danger International, Justice Inc. and Fantasy Hero and we had to set parameters for "normal humans" when it was too late to dial back "Supers that aren't super in that respect".
 
 
Doing things at work probably also allows extra time.
 
 
I don't think it's unique to Hero. I definitely agree with "oh, you blew the roll - that's an utterly catastrophic failure" mindsets being bad for the game.  Even a 1 being a horribly bad result - 5% of the time you totally blow it? Even if a 2+ would have been a complete success?  No, thanks.
 
I believe there was a reference some time back to the "he doesn't need a roll - he's effing Tarzan!" rule.

It varied.  Levels 1-5, thief was about 1/2.  6-9?  Wizard for some bizarre reason made these *fast*.  The jump was at 10, and at that point you needed a ton of XP.
http://www.sisterworlds.com/olde/2e/xp.htm
 
But, also remember that the thief class in 1st and 2nd Ed was pretty bad.  Poor hit points, poor attacks, thieving skills took a LONG time, IIRC, to be good enough.  And traps were frequently Save or Die.  (And often far, far, far too common.  It says a lot, IMO, that there was a Dragon (?) article titled Do YOU Trap Your Bedroom Door?  Because traps tended to be grossly overused.)  
 
 
No.  The limitation was level caps, which were often VERY!!! low.  Like, an elven fighter could never be higher than 7th level.  The highest levels also required HIGH!!! stats...like, for fighters, not just 18 STR but 18/75...for half elf fighters...?  Been forever, so this might not be right.
 
If you're curious, then look online for the manuals from the SSI AD&D games, like Pools of Darkness.  That was #3 in the series, so highest level characters and that should show the limitations.  They were pretty bad.
 
In 3E, there was the notion of a racial level adjustment for some of the powerful races.  You might have 1 class level, but if you're a drow?  You were treated as 3rd or 4th level in terms of power.  It was a terrible notion;  it almost never balanced out.  

No.  This isn't like a fire in a fireplace.  By the time such a fire is generally even detected, it's burning *acres* of forest.  The scale is simply too large.  If it's a square area?  One acre is 660 feet by 66 feet...exactly.  So 10 acres, which in dry conditions can become involved from the initial trigger in pretty short order, represents 660 feet by 660 feet.  That's a half mile long perimeter, altho it's not gonna move equally quickly in all directions...the wind's a big factor.  
 
Not only do you have to suppress the fire along the perimeter, too...but how are you going to keep it suppressed, if the fire is still near it?
 
How are you going to deliver any such solution into rugged terrain?  Helicopters and aircraft have limited capacities.
 
The natural scales of many things are mind-boggling.  The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million.  A cubic meter of sea level air has a mass of about 1.2 kg per cubic meter.  1.2 kg == 1200 grams == 1.2 million milligrams.  So a cubic meter of air has about 500 milligrams of CO2.

Now scale this up....1 km x 1m x 1m.  500 grams.  1 km x 1 km x 1 m.  500 kilograms.  10 km x 10 km x 10 meters...500 metric tonnes.  That's a VERY thin slice of the atmosphere, over a small area.  Nebraska's a middling large state.  Its area?  200,000 square kilometers, 2000x as much.  Now thicken the atmospheric layer to 500 meters...that won't change the atmospheric density that much.  So, over the state of Nebraska...not the whole US, just Nebraska...there's about 5,000,000 TONNES of CO2.
 
That starts giving you the scope of the problem of removing the existing carbon from the atmosphere.  Your fire suppression issue is similar.  If nothing else, the sheer amount of HEAT!!! being released is very hard to fathom.  It's huge. 
 
 

Chris' comment on Robot Warriors playing the same in 2021 under 6e as it did in 1988 reflects the often-stated reality that the core of the game has not changed over all the editions.
 
Character creation is where the complexity exists, and where the changes have taken place.
 
By contrast, DND 1-2E, 3E, 4E and 5E are different at a core mechanical/task resolution/gameplay level.
 
So when we ask whether the game is "better" with or without figured, one answer is that the GAME is unchanged - it plays exactly the same. 
 
We have very few discussions on changing the gameplay.  Maybe the occasional discussion of the SPD chart or using d20 instead of 3d6. Most of the discussion is on character creation, or on the extent to which interaction of characrer creation elements should be covered by the rules or figured out by the gaming group on their own.

I would be more inclined to agree if the result of the figured characteristics were more in line with the amounts needed for the characters. 
 
I never saw a Super who did not need more defenses in some form.  Bricks (with high CON) did not have a lesser need for END (and, by extension, REC) than lower-con Mentalists and Energy Projectors.  Characters with lower physical stats still needed STUN (and again REC) to remain viable in combat.  I never saw a Super just go with their figured SPD, or even just buy it up to the next full point.
 
A player relying on Figured to build a viable Supers character would typically be quite disappointed.  In fact, I would suggest the Figured were actually more viable for heroic characters.
 
In the shift to 6e, my inclination was to retain the familiarity of figured characteristics, but reprice the primary characteristics to incorporate the base figureds they would provide.  That would still be a reasonable option in my view.  However, I would also eliminate the "you can only sell back one" rule (which is not needed if pricing is appropriate) and abandon the limitation "no figured" - just sell them back.  And if the primary characteristic has a limitation, the Figured sellback gets the same limitation if those are from the limited Primary. 
 
But that would be much more complicated than just buying each characteristic up separately, so I also see the merit in the decision that, if the pricing is appropriate, we don't need two different ways to buy the exact same things. Of course, that line of reasoning also supports Doc's more extreme elimination of all characteristics in favour of buying only the underlying mechanical effects.  It's not a binary choice, but a continuum.
 
If I look to the d20 system, the same issues arise.  There are breakpoints (why have an odd number?), and there are other ways to buy many of the mechanics (skill points; feats that provide one element of a characteristic, such as more skill points, save bonuses or more hit points).  They're neither as frequent nor as obvious, as Hero provides much greater transparency in the character construction rules, but the same issues are in there.
 
 
sounds like an ability that the character logically should purchase, under Hero's get what you pay for and pay for what you get philosophy.  Again, I believe that is embedded into other games less visibly.  If my D&D Wizard should "realistically" be wearing heavy armor, I have to dedicate some character resources to that heavier armor, so I get less character resources towards other aspects, like my spellcasting.  Or we see a new class, or a teak of an existing class, that adds some abilities and takes others away.  In Hero, that character spent points on using heavy armor, and paid for it by spending less points on spellcasting.

Chris' comment on Robot Warriors playing the same in 2021 under 6e as it did in 1988 reflects the often-stated reality that the core of the game has not changed over all the editions.
 
Character creation is where the complexity exists, and where the changes have taken place.
 
By contrast, DND 1-2E, 3E, 4E and 5E are different at a core mechanical/task resolution/gameplay level.
 
So when we ask whether the game is "better" with or without figured, one answer is that the GAME is unchanged - it plays exactly the same. 
 
We have very few discussions on changing the gameplay.  Maybe the occasional discussion of the SPD chart or using d20 instead of 3d6. Most of the discussion is on character creation, or on the extent to which interaction of characrer creation elements should be covered by the rules or figured out by the gaming group on their own.

Point out to those who say it's wrong that they are violating the RAW of 6e!  Specifically, see v1, p 11:
 
 
and
 

Your ability to change the RAW is explicitly provided right there in the RAW!
 
BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

Point out to those who say it's wrong that they are violating the RAW of 6e!  Specifically, see v1, p 11:
 
 
and
 

Your ability to change the RAW is explicitly provided right there in the RAW!
 
BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

Point out to those who say it's wrong that they are violating the RAW of 6e!  Specifically, see v1, p 11:
 
 
and
 

Your ability to change the RAW is explicitly provided right there in the RAW!
 
BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

The war certainly rages on.  I think it was a huge shocker some years back when Pathfinder briefly outsold D&D.
 
Wars require financing and troops.

Point out to those who say it's wrong that they are violating the RAW of 6e!  Specifically, see v1, p 11:
 
 
and
 

Your ability to change the RAW is explicitly provided right there in the RAW!
 
BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

Point out to those who say it's wrong that they are violating the RAW of 6e!  Specifically, see v1, p 11:
 
 
and
 

Your ability to change the RAW is explicitly provided right there in the RAW!
 
BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

Too late, the dog pile started before!  It is good, it is healthy to get things out, say what you mean.  🙂
 
Sometimes we all forget we are just playing elaborate games of let's pretend.  We want some rules around it to help when there are disagreements but if everyone at the table agrees, then no rulebook is going to stop the table having fun.
 
We also get precious about our rules.  We have invested in them and if someone says they are rubbish, and going to use a different ruleset (different edition, different game even) then we feel betrayed or that we are losing.
 
Thing is, nothing has changed.  You can still play the games you want with your friends, in the way you, and they, like playing them.
 
I am a poor rulesmith.  I hate reading rulebooks, I need to use them to comprehend them, I remember what I like and often forget, or ignore, what I don't.  My aim, as a GM, is to make my friends happy and, as a player, to engage with the story and find ways to do cool things from my character sheet.
 
I am a tinkerer though. Nothing is ever perfect.  I never really bought into the universality of the system but I kind of like an underlying system toolkit that allows us to build the games we want to play. The problem is that the system was not written for that purpose, it is an evolution from crashing several related products together. And then streamlining and adapting.
 
I think I am disassociated from the RAW enough that I am always content to consider extreme changes, indeed, I want to see what they might do and whether it enhances or degrades.  I want to see what other people think.  I am kind of interested in what other people feel. Because all that informs the value of potential change.
 
What I never understand is folk getting annoyed in such discussions.  I miss having a place to go.  when I was young White Dwarf was my broad gaming community.  when I got older, the UseNET and then these boards were my community.  There is nowhere now that has the level of activity and engagement I want. I will back out of interesting discussions here when they get fractious because I value the space more than "winning". 
 
I am here to chat to folk that share an interest in the mechanics I most enjoy tinkering with.  There are already too few of us here, I would rather not lose the remnants of that community by falling out. I am not perfect, I too get drawn into arguments, feel heated and get stroppy.  I left the boards because I felt disrespected and unvalued (how ridiculous!  I pulled on my big boy pants, gave myself a talking to and came back with an ambition to be more dignified).
 
Anyway.  @Duke Bushido as usual, I loved everything you said.  How it can come from a 2nd edition hold-out, I will never understand!!  😉
 
 

Cautionary Disclaimer:
 
Hugh:  don't read any further.  I know this entire line of thought bugs you, and that isn't why I am here, Sir.
 
Carrying on, but be warned that this is ground I have covered before:
 
There are two killing attacks; they each have a specific ability.  One has range; the other increases in power based on the user's STR (or at least how much he wishes to use with the attack).
 
We know the advantage: Range is a +1/2 Advantage.  If we remove the cost of this advantage from Ranged Killing Attack, we end up with a ten-point power that has no range and does not add additional STR-based damage.  We have found the base power:  Killing Damage, and we know it costs 10 points per die. (Sorry, Hugh, but I encouraged you to not read this.)
 
If we pull H-t-H KA down to it's base 10-points of Killing Damage-- which, remember, has no STR bonus and no Range-  we end up discovering a +1/2 Advantage we can call "Stength Adds."   
 
This is _remarkably_ inexpensive, considering we can buy an Energy Blast for 5 points per die.  Put sixty points into it for 12d6.  Add another thirty for a character with 60 STR to effectively double that  into a 24d6 energy blast.
 
Neat!
 
 
Or he can spend 30 points on a 10d6 Hand Attack (from one of the new editions; I have no idea what Hand Attack sells for these days), add 15 points for Strength Adds and another 15 and potentially have a 20d6 energy blast for 60 points or so.
 
Also neat!
 
 
But for whatever reason, that has never been as fascinating to me as the idea that for ten points apiece, I can buy raw Killing Damage.  That is just the most dun for me to contemplate.
 
(Sorry, Hugh)
 
 
I would like to offer an opinion--  be assured that this is not like offering my results, where it is quite popular to tell me that those were in fact _not_ my results---
 
Wait.  I suppose there is nothing to stop someone from declaring that this is not my opinion, either.
 
Anyway, my opinion, and worth every but you paid for it:
 
"Strength adds to damage" is not an orohan mechanic.  It is a holdover.  It was never a mechanic.  It was a compromise.
 
We all know this game grew from notes and ideas in college, and the playtesters and GMs who would write the first rule book were just winging it.  Once a basic idea was established (say, mivement is broken into types, or all ranged attacks share a mechanic because only damage matters, mechanically- whatever-  then things worked out from there.
 
 
Or maybe it went the other way:  maybe there was a radiation blast power, electric blast power, hydro blast power, and heat ray power and all the playtesting kept refining things and refining things and what we saw in that first edition was what fell out, each edition and supplement tweaking and refining a bit further. (Anyone else remember Penetration Points?.  Been a while since we saw those... Remember when Damage Resistance was an advantage you bought to apply to half of your existing Def?.  Been a while for that, too)
 
Anyway:
 
"I want like a massive super-niva kind of attack that melts bank vaults and sublimates glaciers from ice to hydrogen bombs.  But that's like....   A million points of energy blast!"
 
 
Well, let's play with some ideas.....  How about...
 
Or maybe it was an entirely different root cause:
 
"Okay, roll your 45d6 attack."
 
Okay, just let me....  Wait a minute...  All right, I need-  crap!  They wont all fit in my- hey, Tony, take about ten of these dice and roll them for me--  ah, man!  Where'd they go?!  Half of them are on the floor!
 
Okay, tell you what--  how about you roll fifteen if them and we will multiply the result.  Sound good?
 
Well yeah, but what about Terry?  He has to roll thirty dice for that "Stun Only" attack of his.  Maybe you couod do somerhing dor him, too...?"
 
Look, I dont know.  I wasnt there.  But like everyone else here, I have been involved in lots of brainstroming and lots of testing- at least enough to know that once you have a working model, you start to see why you really dont have a working model, and imorovments and streamlining begin immediately.
 
So my guess has always been that one or the other of the Killing Attacks was hammered out and well-received and loved by the one or two players using them, then the guy playing the brick said "I would love to have one of those killing attack things!  It would be great for busting down walls and ripping Volvos in half!"  (No; I have nothing against America's favorite Grandad-mobile.  In the era this game was created, Volvos were really easy to draw, what with their stack-of-boxes-on-wheels styling aesthetics)
 
"So what does it cost if I take "no range" as a Limitation?"
 
And the testing GM, somewhat on the fly, decided he didnt like giving away that kind of damage potential for only twice the cost of an Energy Blast, and said "fifteen points for a die."
 
"But that's the same,price as he paid to have range!"
 
Well yeah, but you can add some,oomph that he can't.  You can add some,extra damage for your Strength, if you are willing to pay the extra END."
 
Oh!  Okay; cool!  Let's do that!
 
And it never got revisited.  People were okay with it as-is until they began to grumble en masse about the STUN Multiplier and _then_ someone took a look at Killing Attack with an eye toward surgery, but only that bit of it.
 
Happens a lot.  Haymaker wasn't really a mechanic.  It was a confession to bricka and martial artists- some little bit of "evening up" that non-ranged characters got to make sacrificing range a bit more palatable.  At least, up until the ranged attack players "hey!  Why cant we have that?!"
 
Well, it's just a concession- something to make the lack of a ranged attack a bit more tolerable-
 
"No; screw those guys! _I_ want a haymaker!"
 
So punch someone.
 
"No; my punch sucks; I want to haymaker my finger beams!"
 
Look, it's really just a crappier version of Kick--
 
"I dont care!  I paid 5 points for every die of damage in my ranged attack; I should be able to kick someone with it!"
 
Well the brick paid 5 points to buy the Strength that is required to get each die-
 
"Well, that's _his_ problem, isn't it?  I wanna kick with Face Blast!"
 
And we went and studied up on that and debated for a few years and boom- the game evolved a bit more.
 
Then the brick guys were all "hey!  That's our thing!  They took our thing!  Now we are right back to being hosed for a concept that doesnt have a ranged attack!"
 
Well, let's look at what else you get when you buy STR-
 
I don't actually -want- an 80 STR!  I want a 40 STR, but  _want_ a 16d6 punch!
 
Oh.  Okay.
 
And we studied some more and complained about cost / benefit ratios and had easily 1/3 of the conversations on this board and all those before it and boom-  hand attack is (or was, maybe?  For a while at least) 3 points a die (unless, it has been folded back into a long hand formula of STR with various modifiers, etc.
 
Now none of this is _bad_, mind you (though the hundred-and-eighty-six-thousandth rehash of "why STR costs too little and here's how to fix it!" does just slide right off of glazed-over eyes, I am afraid).  This is how games-  any concept, really, gets refined and sorted out and changed- sometimes even improved.
 
I say "sometimes" because every once in a while you end up with with things like the current build for Instant Change.  
 
But sticking with "the Killing Mechanic"--  I maintain that it is not an "orphan" mechanic.  Granted, 'additional STR damage'  is dound only in this one power-- _for now_, but that doesn't mean that it can't be pulled out and put other places:
 
Rubber Ralph uses his incredible stretching powers and pliable body to ensure his opponents with his stretch limbs -- Entangle: Strength adds.   (Just a hasty example folks; don't get worked up about it).
 
"Oh, I can get the truth out of him, Boss.  Five me ten minutes alone with him, please."  Mind Control: Strength adds.  (Yeah; as above)
 
Of course, even if we were to all one-percent agree to this idea--   
 
 
yeah, I know; sometimes I crack myself up. 
 
but even if we all agreed to this, there will always be folks claiming it is an orphan mechanic because it hasn't been officially reworked and published into an Advantage or other published powers don't have a similar component--
 
I will always maintain that it is a holdover: something from the earliest days that hasn't had the scrutiny that other parts of the system have had, or because not enough energy projectors have complained that they can't add STR damage to their photon blasts or something-  I don't have a clue.
 
please remember: I opened this by stating it is an opinion piece and admitting that I have no factual information on how this power came to be, and have gone on to admit again, just above, that I have no idea where it came from or why it came to be and even took more time to write this sentence pointing out (and hopefully reinforcing) those admissions--
 
in short:  I have wasted enough time for several people all at once.  There is no need in wasting your own time telling me that I am wrong, or that I have no way of knowing how all this came to be-- etc.
 
at any rate:  this is a _unique_ mechanic that hasn't been meticulously analyzed by anyone in any position to make changes who has found it in need of change.
 
Sometimes, change is good.  But given what has happened to Instant Change, Transformation Attack, and Shape Shift (yes:  it already existed.  It was in Champions III back in the 80s), I simply want to point out that sometimes leaving it alone might be the simplest, cleanest solution.
 
 
Okay.  Now. Go ahead.  The dogpile starts just below. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

OK.  The I can spend 60 points to have a 70 STR and 15 points to have a 1d6 HKA.  That's 75 points spent.  I can punch for 14d6, Grab with 70 STR, lift with 70 STR and do either 2d6 HKA (if we limit the addition) or 5 1/2d6 HKA (if we do not).  That's option 1.
 
Or I can buy +10 STR (10 points) and a 55 point Multipower pool (55 points), a fixed slot of +55 STR (5 points) and a fixed slot of 3 1/2d6 HKA (5 points).  Same 75 points spent. Now I can punch for 15d6, Grab with 75 STR, lift with 75 STR and do a 5d6 HKA.  That's option 2. My STR is higher under both options. If we don't limit STR adds, I've lost 1/2d6 of KA damage.  If we do, I've gained 3d6 of KA damage.
 
How balanced does that seem?
 
Or I could have just bought +75 STR and had an 85 STR with no KA. Oh wait - what limitation will you give my STR for "does not enhance the HKA that I did not buy, but maybe I might buy later"?
 
Let's look at another equal price option, with the halving rule in place.
 
I can buy a 15 STR (5 points) and a 3d6 KA (45 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 3 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 4d6 HKA.
 
I can buy 30 STR (20 points) and a 2d6 HKA (30 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 6 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 4d6 HKA.  That feels like getting +15 STR for free from where I sit. IOW, getting something for nothing.
 
I can buy 45 STR (35 points) and a 1d6 HKA (15 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 9 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 2d6 HKA. 
 
So it was balanced to get +15 STR for free, but it's not balanced to get more than +15 STR for free?  That makes pretty much no sense to me.
 
Which of the above three options (HKA bigger than STR could augment; HKA at the exact limit STR could augment; HKA smaller than STR could augment) did you see most often?  I known what I saw - and it made it clear that no one considered the rules change when Enemies was updated to 2e.
 
 
From the evolution of the game, I will disagree.  In 1e, the STR add was unlimited.  This resulted in a lot of Bricks with 1d6 KAs.  Different Worlds published an interview with the designers on the changes from 1e to 2e, and there was no indication that the HKA change had anything to do with wanting to de-emphasize KAs.  The Enemies book was not really updated to reflect the change, with the most striking answer being the Monster - a KA machine in 1e, but they did not reduce his STR and boost his KA with the 2e change, so he ended up a Brick with a 2d6 HKA.
 
The Deathstroke scenario noted that the characters with KAs would only use them against high-defense targets to get some STUN through. The stun lotto made KAs in supers play much more effective at KOing higher defense targets than at killing anyone.
 
 
Yup.  Common sense also suggests that someone who is immune to radiation does not take damage from a Blast with radiation SFX.  Virtually all "but common sense says my character..." arguments are responded to with "common sense dictates that you should buy that ability for your character".  Except "but I am strong so my claws should slice deeper".
 
 
Well, at least we can agree on something.  But, as @Duke Bushido is fond of pointing out, it's pointless to argue online about games you will never play with the people you argue with overall.

OK.  The I can spend 60 points to have a 70 STR and 15 points to have a 1d6 HKA.  That's 75 points spent.  I can punch for 14d6, Grab with 70 STR, lift with 70 STR and do either 2d6 HKA (if we limit the addition) or 5 1/2d6 HKA (if we do not).  That's option 1.
 
Or I can buy +10 STR (10 points) and a 55 point Multipower pool (55 points), a fixed slot of +55 STR (5 points) and a fixed slot of 3 1/2d6 HKA (5 points).  Same 75 points spent. Now I can punch for 15d6, Grab with 75 STR, lift with 75 STR and do a 5d6 HKA.  That's option 2. My STR is higher under both options. If we don't limit STR adds, I've lost 1/2d6 of KA damage.  If we do, I've gained 3d6 of KA damage.
 
How balanced does that seem?
 
Or I could have just bought +75 STR and had an 85 STR with no KA. Oh wait - what limitation will you give my STR for "does not enhance the HKA that I did not buy, but maybe I might buy later"?
 
Let's look at another equal price option, with the halving rule in place.
 
I can buy a 15 STR (5 points) and a 3d6 KA (45 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 3 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 4d6 HKA.
 
I can buy 30 STR (20 points) and a 2d6 HKA (30 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 6 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 4d6 HKA.  That feels like getting +15 STR for free from where I sit. IOW, getting something for nothing.
 
I can buy 45 STR (35 points) and a 1d6 HKA (15 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 9 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 2d6 HKA. 
 
So it was balanced to get +15 STR for free, but it's not balanced to get more than +15 STR for free?  That makes pretty much no sense to me.
 
Which of the above three options (HKA bigger than STR could augment; HKA at the exact limit STR could augment; HKA smaller than STR could augment) did you see most often?  I known what I saw - and it made it clear that no one considered the rules change when Enemies was updated to 2e.
 
 
From the evolution of the game, I will disagree.  In 1e, the STR add was unlimited.  This resulted in a lot of Bricks with 1d6 KAs.  Different Worlds published an interview with the designers on the changes from 1e to 2e, and there was no indication that the HKA change had anything to do with wanting to de-emphasize KAs.  The Enemies book was not really updated to reflect the change, with the most striking answer being the Monster - a KA machine in 1e, but they did not reduce his STR and boost his KA with the 2e change, so he ended up a Brick with a 2d6 HKA.
 
The Deathstroke scenario noted that the characters with KAs would only use them against high-defense targets to get some STUN through. The stun lotto made KAs in supers play much more effective at KOing higher defense targets than at killing anyone.
 
 
Yup.  Common sense also suggests that someone who is immune to radiation does not take damage from a Blast with radiation SFX.  Virtually all "but common sense says my character..." arguments are responded to with "common sense dictates that you should buy that ability for your character".  Except "but I am strong so my claws should slice deeper".
 
 
Well, at least we can agree on something.  But, as @Duke Bushido is fond of pointing out, it's pointless to argue online about games you will never play with the people you argue with overall.

Is it measurable?  Two characters have STR 75 and 80.  The player with 80 STR is told that his character is twice as strong.  The lift backs that up. The damage is only 1d6 higher - an average roll of 56 versus 52.5.  Twice as strong?  If they face off in a feat of strength (tog-o-war?  arm wrestle) it's probably resolved with opposed STR rolls (for which the doubly strong character gets only a +1 bonus) or "count the BOD" on 16d6 vs 15d6.
 
Shouldn't the "twice as strong" character win virtually all the time?  Cognitive disassociation.
 
Most games have these issues to some extent so that results are not preordained.  Certain;y d20 sees it when a +7 bonus rolls a 3 and fails, and a - bonus rolls a 20 and succeeds.  Rolls resolved by 3d6 reduce that dissonance, but do not eliminate it.

To me, the better answer is to break down the component parts so that they can be purchased separately, but retain the characteristics as the sum of those component parts.  So we have skill levels that cap out at 5 points for +1 to all DEX/INT/PRE based rolls.  Lightning Reflexes (Initiative) caps out at +1 for all actions at a cost of 1 point.  Perception costs 5 points for +1 to all Perception rolls.  +1d6 PRE attacks costs 5 points.  +5 DEX/INT/PRE costs 10 points (2 points per Char point) and gives you the related abilities.
 
If you now want to remove characteristics, you have the component parts available, but they remain part of the game by default.

It could be different for each character.  If you choose to buy +8 DCs of HTH damage and 8 doublings of lifting (+40 STR at present), great.  Maybe my character hits harder (+12 DCs HTH) but doesn't lift quite so effectively (6 doublings of lifting).  Unified Power works for both.  Oh look - we each get to build the character as we envision it, without one of us paying a penalty cost for having a concept that does not align with the current STR model.
 
 
I can't speak for Doc's vision.  As indicated above, I would start with all HTH-based effects costing 4 points per +1 DC (whether that's a -1/4 limitation on STR or a separate mechanic if we ditched STR as a characteristic), so Grab would work like it has always worked, using those DCs  Just like Martial Grab works with base STR plus any bonus from the maneuver plus any MA DCs. 
 
 
Under my model, 5 points would buy +1 with all DEX or INT based rolls.  You'd buy those bonuses, I expect, unless your skill set was tight enough for a 4-point bonus that only adds to a subset of such rolls - all at once.  +3 to DEX and INT-based rolls - 30.  Getting PER rolls and Initiative with that would cost more (it already does for DEX, but INT remains a bargain doing two things at once).
 
 
No, it's not how skill levels work now. That's why you buy a super-smart, super-agile character instead of a well-trained character.  Well-trained characters are mechanically inefficient under the present model.  But they are identical mechanically.  One driving force behind either Doc's initiative or mine is that the same mechanical results should carry the same CP cost regardless of the special effects.  And "my character is super-agile so he has +3 to all DEX rolls" is exactly the same, mechanically, as "my character has obsessively trained for years so he has +3 to all DEX rolls".  Under the current rules, one should have +15 DEX and the other should have +3 from skill levels. The current approach doesn't even allow the skill rolls due to "one at a time", and the cost would still be a penalty even if they were "all at once".
 
 
Your model is a gain if you think "all of these disparate skills are driven by one single aspect of the character, but initiative is not".  If you take a look at the DEX (or Agility) based skills, some are based on gross motor skills and some tie better to hand-eye coordination and fine manipulation.  Initiative might best lay with the former, but then a gunslinger might find it closer to the latter.  Some might consider it to be its own, third ability.
 
 
I would say, rather, that it is motivated by the notion that "characteristics", "skills" and "powers" are all just labels - special effects - for various mechanics.  The game already acknowledges this with, for example, its reference to characteristics and skills as powers, superskills - powers reflecting a superior ability with a skill.  Defenses are another great example that we buy with characteristics, characteristics as powers (resistant advantage), powers directly or even a form of skills ("requires an acrobatics roll").
 
If we start with the premise that Hero presents a series of mechanics - the building blocks of a character - then characteristics, skills and powers become means of constructing a specific special effect using those mechanics.

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.

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.

The way I see it the reason for the “normal people” having high stats is because a lot of the published material was that way.   That kind of set the expectation on what characters needed to have for stats.  If the baseline SPD is 5 and you want a character that is a little fast you are going to buy a 6 SPD, which means if you want to be really fast, you need a 7-8 SPD.  The same is true for DEX and other stats. 
 
This is compounded by the fact that most stats are kind of abstract and their only real measure is against themselves.   Other than increasing the rolls based on the stat and in earlier edition the figured stats there are no measurable benchmarks for the stats.  What does a higher DEX mean?  Other than going before a lower DEX what does a DEX 23 do?   With some stats there are some benefits to having the stat but those are all in game terms.  Having a high CON can prevent you from being stunned, but that again is based on taking damage.  STR is about the only exception for this.  The STR chart shows how much weight your character can lift.   That is a real-world example that anyone who has no familiarity with the system can understand.   
 
Once the baseline is established it is maintained by inertia.  Each character written to those ideals reinforces the baseline making it harder to adjust.   The only want to adjust it is to drop the stats in published material before using it.  A good rule of thumb would be to drop the SPD of all character by 1 point.  Since all characters are affected equally their relative SPD is maintained.   
 

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.

My first thought was that halving normally applies last, but I don't think the rules address halving outside DCV.
 
I also don't see how you apply a Penalty SL without first computing the penalty.
 
Finally, if it was a normal skill level, its benefits would not be halved because the range penalty is halved.
 
All of that supports Simon's assessment.
 
Perhaps it is better to view "half range modifier" as "doubled range increments" - the penalty is not halved, the distance to which that penalty applies is doubled.