Hugh Neilson

I am actually favoring getting rid of figured stats.  My post was more about reasons why people seem to want to keep them.  Figured stats make it easier and quicker to write up a character, but that does not mean the character is better.  In my opinion getting rid of figured stats makes for better characters because now you don’t have the incentive to purchase primary stats higher than they really need to. My example of 25 STR & CON was an attempt to illustrate that.  
 
Not all characters need huge amounts of END or high REC. Having character with a different OCV and DCV allows for better defining of their fighting styles.  Now if someone wants to be good overall in combat, they don’t need to be an Olympic gymnast.  
 

To be fair, tho, Hugh, some of that disconnect you mention reflects a fundamental problem with teaching the system.  I agree that figured characteristics likely does make things harder by somewhat obscuring things, but working up what an overall balance should be, is still hard.  The character ability guidelines on 6E1 35, for example, are useless;  they're far, far too broad for the most part.

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.

There was a Twilight Zone episode called A Nice Place to Visit that was quite literally that. Great episode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nice_Place_to_Visit

Sure - but the ability to just snap up a new weapon of opportunity after the first is disarmed, or to have the weapon return to the user's hand provided it's still nearby isn't any less limiting than an inability to be disarmed in the first place.

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.

I am of two minds on this.
 
I like figured characteristics, a lot.  I really love the feel of it, and it seems to make sense: the better your health, the more stun you have, etc.  It was one of the things that attracted me to Hero to begin with.  If I were to design a game, I would have figured characteristics.
 
However, in terms of game mechanics, balance, and build, having no figured characteristics works better.  Its more balanced in terms of cost and it makes stat-based characters balance better against skill/power-based characters, for example.  It makes the cost of various stats make more sense (STR, DEX, and especially CON was way too efficient).  But... it feels too plain and mechanical to me now.
 
Edit: so I guess its a push: I would have been happy either way, although my heart leans toward figured.  I know there are some who are more number crunchy that were deeply offended by the math though.

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.

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.

^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.
 
 

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.

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.

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.

Yeah its the opposite of the rule "if you benefit from it, you have to pay points" rule.  If it doesn't do anything in the game but color or flavor, it doesn't cost anything.

First, I see some of the problem here being that Desolid combines multiple effects, being to pass through solid objects and complete immunity to many attacks, at the cost of being unable to attack. Then we tacked on "unless he puts a big advantage on his attacks".  ASW gets around the limitation imposed on the invulnerability.  It seems like losing the limitation on the invulnerability should increase the cost (remove the limitation) on the invulnerability, not increase the cost of the attack. 
 
Consider, say, TurtleGirl.  She can withdraw into her shell for massive defenses, with the Limitation that she can't attack while turtled.  If she had one attack she could use while turtled, would we think she should have a lower limitation on the defenses, or an advantage on the attacks.  Or should she have no limitation on her defenses, and instead have "not while turtled" on all of her attacks?  That seems like the Desolid definition - all attacks are "limited" to not work while desolid, and that +2 advantage really buys off that limitation.
 
 
He did pay extra.  He had to pay for the Penetrating sense. A character with that same Penetrating sense and a mental or indirect attack could also attack from behind the wall. Here again, though, Indirect applies to the attack, supporting ASW applying to the attack. He could also buy Tunnelling and hide within the wall while attacking, either with an Indirect attack, or by exposing only a tiny portion of his body.  The only other example I can think of where the attack costs more is Transdimensional.  Maybe Desolid is a limited form of Extradimensional Movement, or an expanded form of Indirect.  It functions like both. 
 
 
As set out above, the inability to see through the wall hinders both, and there are other ways of circumventing the wall.  A teleporter or a desolid character could both "dive for cover" or move to hide behind the wall.
 
Perhaps the answer is to reduce the price of ASW commensurate with the reduced protection from attacks.  Indirect seems like a reasonable pricing model.
 

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.

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?

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?

Sure - but the ability to just snap up a new weapon of opportunity after the first is disarmed, or to have the weapon return to the user's hand provided it's still nearby isn't any less limiting than an inability to be disarmed in the first place.