Sean Waters

Then again, in the military, people either have to do what you say you you have to do what they say, and hard feelings be damned.  I am unlikely to get upset about anything you say about me or my opinions or, if I do, I'll calm down before posting a reply: we have known each other for a very long time through these boards and I am definitely older and in some ways wiser.  It may not be a coincidence that Hero does not have a skill that is directly analogous to 'Diplomacy'.  I feel I ought to put a smiley face in there, but I'm not going to.

Has anyone suggested punching the target unconscious and then shooting him?  Only guns sound rubbish.
 
Ultimately you can only improve your chance to hit something by increasing your OCV, decreasing their DCV, using an AoE or having more goes.
 
You can Spread an attack (6E2/49), but that may violate the hard cap on OCV.
 
You can't generally decrease an opponent's DCV on your own unless you sneak up on him or PRE attack him (which does not require a roll to hit!)
 
You therefore would seem to need an AoE attack, either on the basic gun attack (which could be a naked advantage if you are in an Equipment game) or on a suppress/drain if you want to make the target easier to hit for everyone, not just you.
 
As a side note the Suppression Attack would work if the target was moving because you get multiple attacks, potentially (and the fact that you can stand still in a field of Suppression Fire and never be hit is a definite lacuna in the rules), but you can do the same with Multiple Attack and that is kind of what is being described - firing several shots to increase your chances of hitting - the chances of hitting are increased because you get more than one go at it rather than because the DCV of the opponent is reduced, but it has much the same effect, at least one on one.  It does not help if the intention is to make a target easier to hit for your mate, but that is what coordinated attacks are for.

Happened to another player.  Rolled a 3 on the Activation Roll for a Force Wall to imprison one of the Seven Horsemen.  
 
As we're debating on what that 3 means, we recall this particular Horseman can just Desolid through the FW.
 
The GM says "I know exactly what effect that 3 has."   Horseman when 'thunk' against the Force Wall that wouldn't let him through.

This can be part of it.  Even if it's not the MP is just too damn good to pass up.
 
My wife's fire mage has Fire Bolt (single-target RKA AP), Fire Ball (AoE RKA), Flash, Mind Control, Teleport and AoE Life Support built into her multipower all for less points than the first two would cost alone.  She's substantially more useful in a larger variety of scenarios because of this.
 
I converted a friend's D&D Bard character this week and similarly used a MP (two actually) for his various instant and constant spells.  He got 18 spells for less than the cost of 4.

Have you ever considered a position in the diplomatic corps?  ? 

Hmm.  I'm not sure I can get behind the idea that any power that is more than you need is surplus to requirements, at least if you mean what you seem to mean.
 
Very few actual characters built by players are ever going to buy a NND as their only major attack: it is going in a MP.  You also almost never see an Entangle outside a MP, or a Flash.  There are many other examples.
 
The problem with MPs is not the mechanic, as such, but the way it seems to be habitually used - to cover a wide range of bases to make characters effective in a wide range of situations because that is play-efficient rather than because that realises a concept.  A lot of example characters I have seen are guilty of that.  You get powers with really complex builds that are there for synergy rather than anything else or powers that are situational.  You'd never splash out on that particular power if you were paying full points.  Well, almost never.
 
Remember Starburst (I think that was his name, could have been Opal Fruit) from 1eChampions?  He had a MP with an attack, defence and movement power in it, IIRC.  He was damn interesting to run.

The horse proposed? 
 
Seriously, though:
 
Consider that animals are intelligent, self-direct beings.  Perhaps the animal in question decides it "owes him one" at some point in the future. 
 
At work, and grasping at straws, but if it helps get the juices flowing.... 

Ha!  SNAP!

Pish pash posh.  We worry too much about balance. 
 
1. Hero is not a balanced game, much as we would like it to be.  Two characters built on the same points are not equally effective: what determines how effective they are is the game they are run in.  If the game is very dungeon and combat oriented then the subtle diplomat is going to be useless, or nearly so.
 
2. In pretty much every other game, equipment is free or, at least, only costed by in-game currency and in-game availability.  This does not tip the game over because it is not just PCs who have access to all this loot.
 
3. The attempts to bring balance to the rules are about as successful as the attempts to bring balance to The Force, and we all know where that leads: Jar-Jar Binks.  As an example I was reading about killing attacks, while I prepare a rant, and saw this gem (1E242):  Increased STUN multiplier (+¼): This Power Advantage increases the STUN Multiplier of a Killing Attack. Characters can purchase it multiple times, with no limit to how many times they can buy it, but must have the GM’s permission to buy it more than once for any particular attack.  Sheesh.
 
4. What stops the pointy hatted Wizard buying a bow and using his magic to enhance his ability?  Nothing, but all the NPCs can do the same thing.  What stops the heavily built Barbarian buying a sword then using skill to enhance his ability?  Nothing either, but no one is getting upset about that, are they?  Another example from also 1E242:  Swordmaster’s Skill: HKA +1d6 (adds to any sword-based HKA), reduced endurance (0 END; +½) (22 active points); only with swords (-½), requires a DEX roll (-½). total cost: 11 points.  Whilst I do not think that is a very good example build, it does illustrate the point.  Badly, but it illustrates it.
 
5. RAW Hero makes you pay for bases.  I, well, I don't even know where to start.  I've never used that whole section.  You tell me the last time a band of adventurers took over an abandoned keep then failed to improve their fighting ability for 6 months to pay for it.  24th of Never, I believe.
 
6. We've had the discussion elsewhere about why swords should be Character Point free and spells are not.  Well, why shouldn't spells be CP free too?  Sure, you don't want every angry mage running round with an 200 point Apocalypse Spell just because they got invited to Neverland as a child and had to spend the hush money somehow, but in any sensibly constructed game-world there will be restrictions on supply, or you could hybrid it: everyday swords and spells are cash only; all the special stuff, you have to splash out for.  Just like in Neverland.
 
My advice to GMs is to fix it in the mix i.e. pitch the game so that it is challenging to these particular PCs and also not be afraid to tell a player 'I don't care if it is technically rules legal, no you can't, because I said so.'  If a player makes a sad face, well, you'll just have to find a way to live with yourself.  Hopefully, however, they will accept that it is wrong to ruin the game for everyone else just so they can go on a mad ego trip.  Obviously being on a mad ego trip is the GM's job.
 
Happy Goram Valentine's Day.

Pish pash posh.  We worry too much about balance. 
 
1. Hero is not a balanced game, much as we would like it to be.  Two characters built on the same points are not equally effective: what determines how effective they are is the game they are run in.  If the game is very dungeon and combat oriented then the subtle diplomat is going to be useless, or nearly so.
 
2. In pretty much every other game, equipment is free or, at least, only costed by in-game currency and in-game availability.  This does not tip the game over because it is not just PCs who have access to all this loot.
 
3. The attempts to bring balance to the rules are about as successful as the attempts to bring balance to The Force, and we all know where that leads: Jar-Jar Binks.  As an example I was reading about killing attacks, while I prepare a rant, and saw this gem (1E242):  Increased STUN multiplier (+¼): This Power Advantage increases the STUN Multiplier of a Killing Attack. Characters can purchase it multiple times, with no limit to how many times they can buy it, but must have the GM’s permission to buy it more than once for any particular attack.  Sheesh.
 
4. What stops the pointy hatted Wizard buying a bow and using his magic to enhance his ability?  Nothing, but all the NPCs can do the same thing.  What stops the heavily built Barbarian buying a sword then using skill to enhance his ability?  Nothing either, but no one is getting upset about that, are they?  Another example from also 1E242:  Swordmaster’s Skill: HKA +1d6 (adds to any sword-based HKA), reduced endurance (0 END; +½) (22 active points); only with swords (-½), requires a DEX roll (-½). total cost: 11 points.  Whilst I do not think that is a very good example build, it does illustrate the point.  Badly, but it illustrates it.
 
5. RAW Hero makes you pay for bases.  I, well, I don't even know where to start.  I've never used that whole section.  You tell me the last time a band of adventurers took over an abandoned keep then failed to improve their fighting ability for 6 months to pay for it.  24th of Never, I believe.
 
6. We've had the discussion elsewhere about why swords should be Character Point free and spells are not.  Well, why shouldn't spells be CP free too?  Sure, you don't want every angry mage running round with an 200 point Apocalypse Spell just because they got invited to Neverland as a child and had to spend the hush money somehow, but in any sensibly constructed game-world there will be restrictions on supply, or you could hybrid it: everyday swords and spells are cash only; all the special stuff, you have to splash out for.  Just like in Neverland.
 
My advice to GMs is to fix it in the mix i.e. pitch the game so that it is challenging to these particular PCs and also not be afraid to tell a player 'I don't care if it is technically rules legal, no you can't, because I said so.'  If a player makes a sad face, well, you'll just have to find a way to live with yourself.  Hopefully, however, they will accept that it is wrong to ruin the game for everyone else just so they can go on a mad ego trip.  Obviously being on a mad ego trip is the GM's job.
 
Happy Goram Valentine's Day.

Pish pash posh.  We worry too much about balance. 
 
1. Hero is not a balanced game, much as we would like it to be.  Two characters built on the same points are not equally effective: what determines how effective they are is the game they are run in.  If the game is very dungeon and combat oriented then the subtle diplomat is going to be useless, or nearly so.
 
2. In pretty much every other game, equipment is free or, at least, only costed by in-game currency and in-game availability.  This does not tip the game over because it is not just PCs who have access to all this loot.
 
3. The attempts to bring balance to the rules are about as successful as the attempts to bring balance to The Force, and we all know where that leads: Jar-Jar Binks.  As an example I was reading about killing attacks, while I prepare a rant, and saw this gem (1E242):  Increased STUN multiplier (+¼): This Power Advantage increases the STUN Multiplier of a Killing Attack. Characters can purchase it multiple times, with no limit to how many times they can buy it, but must have the GM’s permission to buy it more than once for any particular attack.  Sheesh.
 
4. What stops the pointy hatted Wizard buying a bow and using his magic to enhance his ability?  Nothing, but all the NPCs can do the same thing.  What stops the heavily built Barbarian buying a sword then using skill to enhance his ability?  Nothing either, but no one is getting upset about that, are they?  Another example from also 1E242:  Swordmaster’s Skill: HKA +1d6 (adds to any sword-based HKA), reduced endurance (0 END; +½) (22 active points); only with swords (-½), requires a DEX roll (-½). total cost: 11 points.  Whilst I do not think that is a very good example build, it does illustrate the point.  Badly, but it illustrates it.
 
5. RAW Hero makes you pay for bases.  I, well, I don't even know where to start.  I've never used that whole section.  You tell me the last time a band of adventurers took over an abandoned keep then failed to improve their fighting ability for 6 months to pay for it.  24th of Never, I believe.
 
6. We've had the discussion elsewhere about why swords should be Character Point free and spells are not.  Well, why shouldn't spells be CP free too?  Sure, you don't want every angry mage running round with an 200 point Apocalypse Spell just because they got invited to Neverland as a child and had to spend the hush money somehow, but in any sensibly constructed game-world there will be restrictions on supply, or you could hybrid it: everyday swords and spells are cash only; all the special stuff, you have to splash out for.  Just like in Neverland.
 
My advice to GMs is to fix it in the mix i.e. pitch the game so that it is challenging to these particular PCs and also not be afraid to tell a player 'I don't care if it is technically rules legal, no you can't, because I said so.'  If a player makes a sad face, well, you'll just have to find a way to live with yourself.  Hopefully, however, they will accept that it is wrong to ruin the game for everyone else just so they can go on a mad ego trip.  Obviously being on a mad ego trip is the GM's job.
 
Happy Goram Valentine's Day.

I'd assumed that this was axiomatic.  I make characters spend 120 CP on eating utensils and anyone who wants the ability to skin a cat is going to wind up points poor.
 
What?

Pish pash posh.  We worry too much about balance. 
 
1. Hero is not a balanced game, much as we would like it to be.  Two characters built on the same points are not equally effective: what determines how effective they are is the game they are run in.  If the game is very dungeon and combat oriented then the subtle diplomat is going to be useless, or nearly so.
 
2. In pretty much every other game, equipment is free or, at least, only costed by in-game currency and in-game availability.  This does not tip the game over because it is not just PCs who have access to all this loot.
 
3. The attempts to bring balance to the rules are about as successful as the attempts to bring balance to The Force, and we all know where that leads: Jar-Jar Binks.  As an example I was reading about killing attacks, while I prepare a rant, and saw this gem (1E242):  Increased STUN multiplier (+¼): This Power Advantage increases the STUN Multiplier of a Killing Attack. Characters can purchase it multiple times, with no limit to how many times they can buy it, but must have the GM’s permission to buy it more than once for any particular attack.  Sheesh.
 
4. What stops the pointy hatted Wizard buying a bow and using his magic to enhance his ability?  Nothing, but all the NPCs can do the same thing.  What stops the heavily built Barbarian buying a sword then using skill to enhance his ability?  Nothing either, but no one is getting upset about that, are they?  Another example from also 1E242:  Swordmaster’s Skill: HKA +1d6 (adds to any sword-based HKA), reduced endurance (0 END; +½) (22 active points); only with swords (-½), requires a DEX roll (-½). total cost: 11 points.  Whilst I do not think that is a very good example build, it does illustrate the point.  Badly, but it illustrates it.
 
5. RAW Hero makes you pay for bases.  I, well, I don't even know where to start.  I've never used that whole section.  You tell me the last time a band of adventurers took over an abandoned keep then failed to improve their fighting ability for 6 months to pay for it.  24th of Never, I believe.
 
6. We've had the discussion elsewhere about why swords should be Character Point free and spells are not.  Well, why shouldn't spells be CP free too?  Sure, you don't want every angry mage running round with an 200 point Apocalypse Spell just because they got invited to Neverland as a child and had to spend the hush money somehow, but in any sensibly constructed game-world there will be restrictions on supply, or you could hybrid it: everyday swords and spells are cash only; all the special stuff, you have to splash out for.  Just like in Neverland.
 
My advice to GMs is to fix it in the mix i.e. pitch the game so that it is challenging to these particular PCs and also not be afraid to tell a player 'I don't care if it is technically rules legal, no you can't, because I said so.'  If a player makes a sad face, well, you'll just have to find a way to live with yourself.  Hopefully, however, they will accept that it is wrong to ruin the game for everyone else just so they can go on a mad ego trip.  Obviously being on a mad ego trip is the GM's job.
 
Happy Goram Valentine's Day.

You could have created a character of a given concept in any edition of Champions or Hero, and they would have played similarly.  You can certainly game the rules, but then you always could and always will be able to: even actual reality is played better by some people than others.
 
The difference would be that in 1st edition Champions the character would have been mechanically woollier (to use a technical term), 6e more precisely defined.  You had to bend the rules or just make stuff up in Original Champions to get some of what you wanted, 6e has almost all of the bases covered, but they are both recognisably the same system, which is remarkable: almost every other game system that has run to several editions that I can think of has made major changes to the way it works over the years.
 
We should probably rejoice now.

So...much...to...say...
 
Do we need COM?  No, we don't need COM.  I liked COM and I'd have preferred it to be left in as a sidebar, perhaps with other optional Characteristics, like Passion, Soul and Spirit (sort of Str/Con/Dex for magic).  Hero is all about options and building what you want.  I mean I almost always spent a few points on COM, even though it never really did anything in the games we played, just for colour.  I can do without it or build it with limited PRE, but it was a useful shorthand for 'good looking'.  Ah well.
 
Figured characteristics, pretty much the same.  I liked figured characteristics, but I can build characters without them easily enough, although that took a little getting used to.  It even makes sense that we do it the 6e way, for the reasons that Hugh and others have expounded.  I'm not sure they would have been easy to leave in as an option though because that would substantially change the point cost of characters.  OK if everyone is built that way, less so if only some want to do it.  I still remember my mind being blown by the character Ogre in 3rd edition who was Dex 18 (24 points), Spd 4 (12 points) and had 3 overall combat levels  (24 points) - yeah, I can remember that from decades ago, can I remember where I put my keys?  Anyway, that made him OCV/DCV 6 + 3 levels, which inevitably went into OCV.  If you binned the levels and increased his DEX to 30, you would be spending an extra 36 points (30-18)*3 but you got back the 24 points from the skill levels and didn't need to spend the 12 points on SPD, so that was 36 points saved.  Ogre was now DEX 30 and had OCV/DCV of 10!
 
So, yeah, I can see the sense in getting rid of figured characteristics.
 
I think some powers are probably better and some worse, from my point of view.  I’d be surprised if even the most ardent fan of 6e didn’t have some gripe, however minor.  In a way, I don’t think that 6e went far enough in breaking everything down and putting it back together more logically.  I’m not a fan, for example, of compound modifiers, like Focus, which means that your Magic Stick can be taken away from you but you get UBO, sorry UOO, for free.  There are other examples.  Many other examples.
 
I think that 6e probably is the best Hero has so far achieved, mechanically, but, at the same time, I don’t think that Hero is as good as it could be – and I’m not just talking tweaks.
 
Things like the way that grappling works, to the complete lack of a mechanic to address ignoring opponents in combat and acting as if they were not there.  I’m also not a fan of balance as a justification for a rule.  I’d rather we have a realistic rule (for a given value of ‘realistic) and a sidebar on how to mitigate the harsh.
 
I also don’t think that you can entirely divorce substance from style.  “Technically a great game!” is never going to sell, and I want Hero to sell, so lots of new content comes out.  I have a much longer list of gripes here, which I will not rehearse in full, but it starts with the constant repetition of the phrase ‘unless the GM decides otherwise’, or something similar, followed by the fact that Book 1 was Character Creation.  Can we say “Barrier to entry”?  I have suggestions.  I imagine you can imagine.
 
 

You could have created a character of a given concept in any edition of Champions or Hero, and they would have played similarly.  You can certainly game the rules, but then you always could and always will be able to: even actual reality is played better by some people than others.
 
The difference would be that in 1st edition Champions the character would have been mechanically woollier (to use a technical term), 6e more precisely defined.  You had to bend the rules or just make stuff up in Original Champions to get some of what you wanted, 6e has almost all of the bases covered, but they are both recognisably the same system, which is remarkable: almost every other game system that has run to several editions that I can think of has made major changes to the way it works over the years.
 
We should probably rejoice now.

You could have created a character of a given concept in any edition of Champions or Hero, and they would have played similarly.  You can certainly game the rules, but then you always could and always will be able to: even actual reality is played better by some people than others.
 
The difference would be that in 1st edition Champions the character would have been mechanically woollier (to use a technical term), 6e more precisely defined.  You had to bend the rules or just make stuff up in Original Champions to get some of what you wanted, 6e has almost all of the bases covered, but they are both recognisably the same system, which is remarkable: almost every other game system that has run to several editions that I can think of has made major changes to the way it works over the years.
 
We should probably rejoice now.

So...much...to...say...
 
Do we need COM?  No, we don't need COM.  I liked COM and I'd have preferred it to be left in as a sidebar, perhaps with other optional Characteristics, like Passion, Soul and Spirit (sort of Str/Con/Dex for magic).  Hero is all about options and building what you want.  I mean I almost always spent a few points on COM, even though it never really did anything in the games we played, just for colour.  I can do without it or build it with limited PRE, but it was a useful shorthand for 'good looking'.  Ah well.
 
Figured characteristics, pretty much the same.  I liked figured characteristics, but I can build characters without them easily enough, although that took a little getting used to.  It even makes sense that we do it the 6e way, for the reasons that Hugh and others have expounded.  I'm not sure they would have been easy to leave in as an option though because that would substantially change the point cost of characters.  OK if everyone is built that way, less so if only some want to do it.  I still remember my mind being blown by the character Ogre in 3rd edition who was Dex 18 (24 points), Spd 4 (12 points) and had 3 overall combat levels  (24 points) - yeah, I can remember that from decades ago, can I remember where I put my keys?  Anyway, that made him OCV/DCV 6 + 3 levels, which inevitably went into OCV.  If you binned the levels and increased his DEX to 30, you would be spending an extra 36 points (30-18)*3 but you got back the 24 points from the skill levels and didn't need to spend the 12 points on SPD, so that was 36 points saved.  Ogre was now DEX 30 and had OCV/DCV of 10!
 
So, yeah, I can see the sense in getting rid of figured characteristics.
 
I think some powers are probably better and some worse, from my point of view.  I’d be surprised if even the most ardent fan of 6e didn’t have some gripe, however minor.  In a way, I don’t think that 6e went far enough in breaking everything down and putting it back together more logically.  I’m not a fan, for example, of compound modifiers, like Focus, which means that your Magic Stick can be taken away from you but you get UBO, sorry UOO, for free.  There are other examples.  Many other examples.
 
I think that 6e probably is the best Hero has so far achieved, mechanically, but, at the same time, I don’t think that Hero is as good as it could be – and I’m not just talking tweaks.
 
Things like the way that grappling works, to the complete lack of a mechanic to address ignoring opponents in combat and acting as if they were not there.  I’m also not a fan of balance as a justification for a rule.  I’d rather we have a realistic rule (for a given value of ‘realistic) and a sidebar on how to mitigate the harsh.
 
I also don’t think that you can entirely divorce substance from style.  “Technically a great game!” is never going to sell, and I want Hero to sell, so lots of new content comes out.  I have a much longer list of gripes here, which I will not rehearse in full, but it starts with the constant repetition of the phrase ‘unless the GM decides otherwise’, or something similar, followed by the fact that Book 1 was Character Creation.  Can we say “Barrier to entry”?  I have suggestions.  I imagine you can imagine.
 
 

You could have created a character of a given concept in any edition of Champions or Hero, and they would have played similarly.  You can certainly game the rules, but then you always could and always will be able to: even actual reality is played better by some people than others.
 
The difference would be that in 1st edition Champions the character would have been mechanically woollier (to use a technical term), 6e more precisely defined.  You had to bend the rules or just make stuff up in Original Champions to get some of what you wanted, 6e has almost all of the bases covered, but they are both recognisably the same system, which is remarkable: almost every other game system that has run to several editions that I can think of has made major changes to the way it works over the years.
 
We should probably rejoice now.

Hmmm. Agree to disagree. Just because published materials had silly stat inflation doesn't mean I need to do that. Losing utility of prior writeups...doesn't really make one or another rules version mechanically superior nor is it something I honestly personally care about.
 
My point is: I don't think it IS markedly different. At all. I think the "actually playing the game" parts are functionally identical for my purposes.
 
"Neater and cleaner" however you have convinced me of.
 
I find, "What's your actual character concept and how can we effectively model that in the system so you get the results you want", to be fairly intuitive and balanced across all version of Hero I've actually played (4th and 5th) and I suspect that is still very much the case in 6th.
 
Like, in your example, you've chosen to deliberately play a character who is bad at certain things. So you've taken Disads and such to reflect that. So you can play your concept. Because, we assume, playing a Rogue who isn't (as) good at fighting is what you are wanting to play.
Maybe you get a point break, but..if we're playing standard fantasy stuff then you being a good rogue won't impact me being a good druid and neither of those will both the fighter. But so long as you get to play your concept, and the in-game effects of that concept match up to how you think it should work it's all good.
 
I think you're counterpoint may likely include: In prior editions with figured stats PCs that know what's up can cheese things around to make their characters more efficient than other characters and functionally be better in every way.
 
My counter point would be: I care less about theoretical build issues than I do playing the game. And I'm happy to have a GM give feedback on PCs being too good, too cheesy, too efficient or otherwise overshadow other players.
To me that happens, can happen, in all games, and the only real thing to stop it from happening is...a GM. Which most games have.
 
But, yes, you've sold me on neater and cleaner, for certain (what I consider) fringe case "concepts" like "guy who is average at Dex but good at fighting, but not as good at defending, but definitely isn't using skill for any of that".
 
So, again, thanks for those examples. Much clearer now.
 
 

They basically are the same already; 3d6 roll under with situational modifiers.
 
In the case of an attack roll it is resisted by the opponent's DCV, vs the typically unresisted nature of skill rolls...but the resistance of the target's DCV is really just a penalty to the 11- + bonuses roll made by the attacker and is thus the same as say a Acrobatics roll with a situational penalty.
 

So...much...to...say...
 
Do we need COM?  No, we don't need COM.  I liked COM and I'd have preferred it to be left in as a sidebar, perhaps with other optional Characteristics, like Passion, Soul and Spirit (sort of Str/Con/Dex for magic).  Hero is all about options and building what you want.  I mean I almost always spent a few points on COM, even though it never really did anything in the games we played, just for colour.  I can do without it or build it with limited PRE, but it was a useful shorthand for 'good looking'.  Ah well.
 
Figured characteristics, pretty much the same.  I liked figured characteristics, but I can build characters without them easily enough, although that took a little getting used to.  It even makes sense that we do it the 6e way, for the reasons that Hugh and others have expounded.  I'm not sure they would have been easy to leave in as an option though because that would substantially change the point cost of characters.  OK if everyone is built that way, less so if only some want to do it.  I still remember my mind being blown by the character Ogre in 3rd edition who was Dex 18 (24 points), Spd 4 (12 points) and had 3 overall combat levels  (24 points) - yeah, I can remember that from decades ago, can I remember where I put my keys?  Anyway, that made him OCV/DCV 6 + 3 levels, which inevitably went into OCV.  If you binned the levels and increased his DEX to 30, you would be spending an extra 36 points (30-18)*3 but you got back the 24 points from the skill levels and didn't need to spend the 12 points on SPD, so that was 36 points saved.  Ogre was now DEX 30 and had OCV/DCV of 10!
 
So, yeah, I can see the sense in getting rid of figured characteristics.
 
I think some powers are probably better and some worse, from my point of view.  I’d be surprised if even the most ardent fan of 6e didn’t have some gripe, however minor.  In a way, I don’t think that 6e went far enough in breaking everything down and putting it back together more logically.  I’m not a fan, for example, of compound modifiers, like Focus, which means that your Magic Stick can be taken away from you but you get UBO, sorry UOO, for free.  There are other examples.  Many other examples.
 
I think that 6e probably is the best Hero has so far achieved, mechanically, but, at the same time, I don’t think that Hero is as good as it could be – and I’m not just talking tweaks.
 
Things like the way that grappling works, to the complete lack of a mechanic to address ignoring opponents in combat and acting as if they were not there.  I’m also not a fan of balance as a justification for a rule.  I’d rather we have a realistic rule (for a given value of ‘realistic) and a sidebar on how to mitigate the harsh.
 
I also don’t think that you can entirely divorce substance from style.  “Technically a great game!” is never going to sell, and I want Hero to sell, so lots of new content comes out.  I have a much longer list of gripes here, which I will not rehearse in full, but it starts with the constant repetition of the phrase ‘unless the GM decides otherwise’, or something similar, followed by the fact that Book 1 was Character Creation.  Can we say “Barrier to entry”?  I have suggestions.  I imagine you can imagine.
 
 

When it comes to determining which edition has the best game mechanics, it's not between 6 different editions, it's really between 4: pre-4th edition Hero System, 4th edition, FRED, and 6th.  There are several core mechanics which are largely consistent between editions: combat hit resolution, skill resolution, most primary characteristics are retained, 5pts per DC/d6, use of Advantages and Limitations, effect-driven power building/design and the basic utility of Disads/Complications.
Pre-4th edition Hero is a messy hodgepodge of different mechanics(1st edition FH, e.g.), so I think it's automatically dead last in terms of mechanics.  5th edition is effectively a refinement of 4th and there aren't too many changes, so I think 5th slightly edges 4th in that regard.  It then comes down to a personal preference of whether one likes the mechanics changes from 5th to 6th, which were the most significant since the changes from 3rd to 4th edition.  I like that the stun lotto from killing attacks was toned down, because a lot of players were prone to abusing that mechanic.  The elimination of figured characteristics was a big change. It simplifies the math and allows a bit of diversity in character design.  I generally like the tweaks to advantages, limitations and power frameworks, and changing the way disads/complications work(in terms of taking a smaller amount of them and not straining to come up with plot complications for every PC you build, just to meet an arbitrary "budget" number).   
The main critique of the mechanics of both 5th and 6th would be that, overall, the dizzying plethora of tweaks and options makes the game dauntingly complicated for new players.  I think 6th basically takes the complexity as far as it can go and still be remotely playable.  If I was playing for the first time, I'd prefer 4th.  But as an experienced player/GM, I like 6th better, because I know my way around the system and I think it works more smoothly and consistently.  

Its kind of counter-intuitive in a way, because shape shift to have a different physical form goes against sight, not touch.  I get the logic (he LOOKS different!) but honestly sight should be for color and pattern, and touch should be for shape.

I think, on balance, my view is that, mechanically, Hero has not changed since it was first edition Champions.  It has a simple but effective mechanic that it has stuck to, despite a number of people pointing out that rolling high for good makes more sense.
 
What has changed is the way the powers are presented, and whether that is better or not is a matter of debate.  Certainly some of the powers are more logically presented but I have a problem with some of the maths (mainly how you go about calculation a modifier value - there seems to be some inconsistency and unfairness) and the detail.
 
By 'detail' I mean that, for example, Shapeshift is now a sensory power.  That sort of makes sense, I suppose, but it is confusing for new players and some old players too: actually building something that can change shape, as most people would understand the concept, is not straightforward.
 
Everything takes a lot longer to actually read, understand and build now.  1eChampions was a slim volume and you could still do (almost) everything that you can do with 6e, given a bit of imagination and a following wind.  I'm pretty sure there are bits of 6e I've never actually read.
 
If we are referring to 'build mechanics' therefore, well, it's Betamax vs VHS: Betamax may be technically better, but VHS is the one that actually gets used.  Got used.  Maybe I should have gone with DVD and BlueRay, but even that is showing my age.  How about Apple abandoning the Lightning Connector for USB C?  6e is definitely the best iteration in some respects, but not when it comes to excitement and fun, which is what the mechanics should be aimed at achieving.  The last time I really felt that was when I got my hands on 4th edition Champions, the Big Blue Book.
 
In summary, the actual game mechanics have never really changed - what we appear to be arguing about is the build mechanics.
 
The build mechanics have improved in some areas, not so much in others.  They have certainly become more complicated, which can be a barrier to entry.  I daresay if I went back to 4th edition now it would seem more limited, so in that way, 6e is better, but then I'm an addict and I'd get 7e if it came in 4x500page lever arch files.  I don't think all the changes have been for the better and I don't think all the things that could do with changing have been.  6e is (build) mechanically different.  I think I'll leave it there.