Christopher

Source: http://turnoff.us/geek/idle/
 

If this spell somehow traps the players soul, something went Jumanjii there.
 
I think you need to write it out a bit more.

Just go with, "orca."

Source: http://turnoff.us/geek/idle/
 

Mick the Mauler
 
Do you want someone punched ? Do you want someone hurt ? You do ? Then get Mick the Mauler ! He will do all your beating up needs and can survive police and paranormal intervention if they get in the way. So if you need someone punched ring 1-800-EAT-FIST

For both eating and reproducing the answer is:
"Too many!"

It's Funny Cause It's True:
 

I liked his take on the character. 

"change my mind" is just "convince me" with different words. And "convince me" is a trolling technique. A variant of the "shifting goalpost" approach, wich I define as "undefined goalpost".
 
Intersting point. Never thought about that :D

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows: Guy Ritchie's sequel to the 2009 film, with Holmes and Watson battling the machinations of Professor Moriarty. Muddled in places, but generally enjoyable. (Netflix DVD.com Blu-ray)

I jokingly answered earlier in the thread, but now I'll answer for real.  This is going to come across as kind of rude.  Sorry.  No offense meant to anybody here.
 
 
 
6th edition is inferior because it is designed by a committee, based upon a false promise, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying system.  It's the product of endless tinkering without an achievable goal or a clear direction.  I'll try to flesh out what I mean by all that, but some of it is conceptual and may be rather hard to explain.
 
Everything up to 4th edition was led by the original designers, and there's a logic to how everything was costed.  Power X is about twice as good as Power Y, so it should cost twice as much.  There's a basic concept of balance built into it from the very beginning.  All the powers and characteristics are roughly scaled with one another.  It's not perfectly executed, but it's pretty close.  Moreover, there was a philosophy to how it was balanced.  They valued certain abilities more than others, and so those were costed higher.  These ideas were internally consistent with each other.  Combat abilities are more valuable than noncombat abilities.  Flexible powers are more valuable than those that are more limited.  Therefore these things cost more points.  If you built characters as they intended, and played the game as they intended, it had a wonderful balance.  4th edition Champions was almost perfect.  And again, it was true to its philosophy.
 
Now with a system as complex as Champions, you'll never get a perfect balance.  There are just too many moving bits and pieces, and a powergamer will find the most efficient builds possible, while a person who has never played before will waste points on things that may never come up.  That is unavoidable.  But later editions didn't understand that.  5th edition, 5th edition revised, 6th edition, Champions Complete, all of them have tried to tweak the system to achieve some perfect balance that just isn't possible.  And the biggest problem is, these changes didn't follow the original pricing structure of the system.  The changes were made by people with a different philosophy of how the system should work.  And those changes don't quite mesh with the underlying system.
 
As an example, let's go to 5th edition, written by Steve Long (somewhat prophetically named when you see the size of his manuscripts).  He had his own ideas about how the Hero System should work, and he modified it.  Adders became much more common.  The pricing structure for some powers was changed, but not for others.  And while some of these changes were arguably good, others were not so great.  It was clear that he was seeing the system in a different way from the original authors, but it was a modification of their system and not one built from the ground up with his own ideas.  Long's philosophy appeared to be based around trying to make everything fit around a certain core set of game mechanics.  Instant Change was removed as a Talent and modified to be a "My clothes only" Transform.  Shapeshift was turned into a sense-affecting power.  But one of the most glaring examples here is Damage Shield.  In 4th edition, Damage Shield was a +1/2 advantage you applied to a power.  If anybody touched you, or if you touched anybody, they were hit with that power.  When 5th edition hit, it suddenly required you to purchase the advantage Continuous (+1).  But, you didn't actually get the benefit that Continuous granted, which is that somebody hit with a Continuous power will be affected by it every single phase.  No, you had to pay a +1 advantage tax because now you've got to change your Energy Blast to a Constant power before you can apply Damage Shield.
 
Why is this a problem?  Because it's a different game philosophy stacked on top of the previous one.  While both follow the idea of "you get what you pay for", 4th edition was more focused on comparative effectiveness, whereas 5th added costs with the idea of making powers conform to a certain format.  A 10D6 Energy Blast with Damage Shield in 4th edition was 75 points.  That's the same as a 15D6 Energy Blast.  Quite expensive, but you got the benefit that you could hurt your enemy when it wasn't your phase, without an attack roll, depending on what they did.  Still might be too expensive though.  In 5th edition, you had to buy it Continuous first.  So now that power became 125 points, the same as a Twenty-five D6 Energy Blast.  No power-gamer in the world would choose a 10D6 Damage Shield over a 25D6 EB.  The two aren't remotely comparable.  There are other problems as well.  The cost of Major Transform had previously been based upon the cost of RKA, the logic being if you can kill them, you might as well be able to turn them into a frog.  5th ed wisely dropped having Cumulative be a +1/2 advantage (RKA is cumulative by default), but it added requirements that you had to pay more to affect different types of targets.  Instead of "turn target into frog" the standard Transform became "turn human into frog".  To affect any target, you had to buy another advantage. 
 
In this way, the cost structure of 5th edition became less consistent, more concerned with form than function.  Abuse wasn't eliminated at all, the nature of the abuse just changed.
 
I wasn't active on the boards during the time that they were soliciting suggestions for 6th edition.  I think I had an account here but I had wandered off.  But as I understand it there was a lot of discussion about what changes people wanted to see made.  And while I like most of you guys just fine, good lord do I disagree with a lot of you over how the game system should work.  I see questions on the Hero System Discussion page, and many of the suggestions are overly complex and extremely point inefficient.  But some people feel like they've got to dot those "i"s and cross those "t"s.  Again I wasn't involved in any of the discussions, but when I flip through the 6th edition book, I'm reminded of the adage "too many cooks spoil the broth".  6th compounds some of the mistakes of 5th edition and doesn't look back.

I agree that we could use lesser characteristics however, it still doesn’t mean that COM can go too.

I was under the impression that COM was replaced by Striking Appearance.  This is a good move IMO because it replaced a CP sink with no official game effect with one that has an actual official mechanic associated with it.

"Sometimes to only way to live, is to give up all hope of survival or escape." - Tzun Tsu.
It is a known effect. And Bertholo had most definitely hit that point.
 
 

Paying double past a certain threshold discourages (but does not eliminate) certain choices.  I personally like it as having stats in the super-human range can often have pretty large in-game implications.
 
In 5e and earlier a DEX of 23+ made you a combat god with near certainty that you would go first and have a higher base OCV/DCV than anyone you encountered.
 
Similarly a STR of 25+ meant you were doing more damage than anyone else with your muscle-powered weapons while shredding most entangles with ease while your compatriots were stuck.
 
I'm really enjoying the various viewpoints on this discussion.  Several good ideas floating around.

Because
STR
DEX
CON
INT
EGO
PRE
OCV
DCV
OMCV
DMCV
SPD
PD
ED
RED
END
BOD
STUN
 
Do you want to explain to a non-Hero player that Hero has seventeen characteristics and you think that's NOT ENOUGH?
It's my own opinion that Hero would benefit from FEWER characteristics, not more.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary goes and buys some Striking Appearance

Well if you think that I am a troll rather than a long standing supporter for the game and those who play it, and that I am trolling rather than asking people who don't like 6e to itemize the problems they have with the ruleset that cause them to express a general dislike for it at one end of the spectrum up to using terms like "detest" at that other end of the spectrum, then you misunderstand me.

I'm not attempting to troll you (or anyone else) Christopher. I've been away from these board for a while, and coming back to it I notice a trend with the posters currently active where a noticeable subgroup seem to hold 6e in poor regard. As the opening post stipulates, I want to start a friendly forum for reasonable discussion for people to put forth their talking points for why some other version of the rules is a better version of the rules.
 
You are of course free to not participate in the discussion if you don't want to, but popping in to participate by accusing me of trolling seems counterproductive on the one hand or perhaps some might say a bit trollish in and of itself on the other. Name calling has a tendency to propagate, I suppose. But if you have an opinion about why 6e is not the best mechanical version of the rules, I would like to hear it if you would take the time to type it out.

... Rug-gedly handsome.

Well, I'm not quite that old. I at least had the option of ASCII drawings that I could print out and mail to friends.

Spreading an attack (6E2 49) :
" Alternately, a character may Spread his attack to hit more than one target. Te character loses 1 Damage Class for each 1m radius Area he wants to fll with his attack."
Two Handed weapons are high DC, so easier to loose a few DC.
 
Combined Attack (6E2 74):
"Using two or more powers or similar abilities (but not Combat/Martial Maneuvers or the like) once against a single target isn’t a Multiple Attack. It’s a Combined Attack, and counts as type of Strike. Terefore it has no OCV penalty, doesn’t halve the attacker’s DCV, and doesn’t take a Full Phase to perform."
Even if the weapons are not the same size, I would consider them a Combined attack.
 
That is only an issue with the Free Attack you get to begin with (6E2 62):
"Afer performing a Grab, in that same Segment a character can only Squeeze, Slam, or Trow the target as an immediate attack. He can’t use any other maneuvers or attacks (unless the GM so permits, and even in that case, using another attack should mean releasing the Grab in most circumstances). In later Phases he can use any attacks he wants (provided he has the free limbs or other means to do so)."
In all following phases you could always use your weapon.
 
I am pretty sure that is allowed by RAW. The equipment section even deals with questions like "What is the Weapon Lenght of a Shield?"
 
 
Something maybe worth picking up is HSMA. It has some intersting new Maneuvers, like "Bind" - wich disables a enemy weapon.