greypaladin_01

Wow!
 
Now _that_ is a feat of strength, by God!
 
 

I have been hearing this same argument for decades, and here is why it is invalid:
 
All power frameworks are a cheat; all power frameworks (save one) reward you for having a "tight concept."
 
The difference was the type of concept:  having three different multipowers, each filled with powers that you know in advance you will not use concurrently (anyone else old enough to remember when the "movement Multipower" was so accepted that we all know to this day what was in it?  Or the "attack multipower" for your blaster character?).
 
The difference is that rewards for _tactically_ tight concepts were somehow A-OK, yet rewards for _thematically_ tight concepts were "ooh!  That's a horrible dirty cheat!"
 
Then along came power pool or, as I prefer to think of it, the mutlipower of everything, which allows a 250-or actual Superman, and is still somehow way more okay than a tiny discount for sticking to a theme.
 
The whole argument is wierd.
 
 

I'm still on the fence with Unified Power, yes it allows more... but ultimately that is because more and more rules kept getting piled onto ECs.   Even with some of those, it feels more like rules that were created to stop that ONE player instead of putting more of a focus on Genre or GM campaign limits.  

As @Duke Bushido mentioned, all Frameworks are a 'cheat' to milk more points into a character build, and EC are no better or worse than the others.  Ultimately some of this should come down on the GM saying "ok, maybe by the RAW you could do this, but I am going to say no.  You need to make X changes and then we are fine."    

Personally I like Elemental Controls more for various reasons, even if one of the biggest is just how it nicely gathers all the associated powers into one place.  I would ignore many of the limits placed over the various editions for the sake of proper concepts...but I am also not afraid to say 'no' or "we tried this but it needs reworking"
 

I still play old editions.  I dabbled in 4e for a year or two, but douns myself eight back in 2e shortly after, and I have never seen anything in newer editions compelling enough to make me change.  Given the compatibikity backwards and forwards, if something I want does finally come along, I will likely just double the END cost and drag it backwards.
 
 
 
If it is any help, I can tell you what I see.
 
I see pretty accurate comic book characters (so far as I know, anyway) and pretty accurate pulp-esque Latern B Jaw versus the Swami type character builds.
 
 Obviously, this is all from one point of view: my knowledge of comic books is pretty thin, and at sixty-three years old, even what I do know is pretty dated (I wasnt a comic book kid, and did not become a comic book adult).
 
 
So let me skip ahead to my 4e experience:
 
Everyone had every defense.
 
There is no softer way to say that:  by the third oe fourth character, everyone had some od everything, defense-wise.  It hasnt changed in the rules, so I suspect that is still kind of the way that the game is played: "stadanrd defense package" or some such thing.  No matter what you want to call it, everyone had a little bit of everything, "just in case."
 
Sam, your character's name is Crowbar.  His powers are based on turning his body to iron.  Your powers are Growth, Density increase, plus 20 STR only in HERO ID, resistant hardened PD and ED.  This all makes sense.. I get the Knockback Resistance, and thank you for not foing overboard on that.
 
Explain the Flash Defense?  Okay, fine; your sunglasses are super sunglasses.  Explain the EGO Defense?
 
"Well, it is so much cheaper to mind control someone now, so I figur3d I had better take some, just in case...."
 
On top of the 30 EGO?!
 
"Well, it is so cheap  to mind control someone now....  I figured I would buy a few dice of that, and a higher EGO gives me a higher OCV--"
 
You're a brick!  You are -literally- a human boat anchor!  How does mind control fit into that?!
 
 
Things like that.
 
 
The old methods lead- at my tables; do remember this is anecdotal- to people more comfortable playing to type:  bricks didn't buy EGO defense because Ego powers were _expensive_!  People wanting to build an Egoist character went all-in.  I mean, they _had_ to if they wanted do be a real threat.  You didnt have that Egoist PC who also had an,incredible STR and a few martial arts maneuvers.  You got the comic-classic (and pulp classic) mental powers guy.
 
The TLDR version is that I found the total investment in mental powers required to be effective resulted in players much more comfortable in building characters who better-exemplifies the actual sort of character they wanted to play with a lot less dabbling in Ego Powers "because they are more effective now."
 
 
 

The main ones offered in 6th are Multipower, Power Pools and the Unified Power Limitation.   There are some variants in the APG but I don't remember much about them off hand.

From at least 4/5 are going to be basically the same with the only difference being Elemental Controls, which Unified Power replaced.   But they essentially do the same thing, I think there are other posts going into more details on UP vs EC.

That really is it for the most part.  There are some variance on how the various Frameworks function by edition and the older (pre-4th) you go, the more different some things will look.
 
 
That being said, you mentioned Champions at first but then also Fantasy and Pathfinder.  Exactly what type of game are you trying to do with HERO?    Because completely separate from Frameworks are suggested rules and systems based on type of game.

While reviewing through more of the Champions (and Fantasy Hero) 3rd Edition rules, I noticed that Mental Powers worked a bit different from what I am used to.   I was curious if anyone knows the reasons for the change, and what peoples thoughts on keeping the older style in modern games would balance and feel like.
 
I am used to all Mental powers operating against EGO values, unless purchased otherwise of course, but in 3rd it seems that while Mind Control works vs EGO,  Illusions and Telepathy work against INT.    At first it seemed strange to me but thinking about it more, I feel that at least for Illusions it is "working out the inconsistencies"  not as sure about Telepathy.   I do also like the idea of having EGO not being the ONLY stat that matters for mental abilities, but was hoping for some input from people more familiar with the older rules.   
 
Did anyone have actual experience with these rules in play?   How did they feel at the table vs the more current design version?

That would be a good way to do.  But I do like the idea of keeping the target number based 10+difficulty.  While leaving players with the negative for untrained helps show them the difference between trying something they are trained in or not.     "You want to do better, this is an everyman skill,  if you spend the time to learn, and the xp, you can get it up to a +0 or +1 level."

But either approach would work well.

Yup, that is right.  8 or less essentially means untrained/unskilled.  Instead of giving a negative, you might simply add 3 to the range number, meaning the character needs 13 or better to succeed (just to stay within the frame of adding things rather than taking away...)
 
 

So making sure I understand.   11- rolls would be +0,  +1 per over 11- and  8- skills would be -3 on skill check?
 
 

That is certainly part of what I was looking for.   While HERO works well as it is, the systems are pretty old school compared to current-gen RPGs.  Not a deal-breaker by any means, but things that can make it look less daunting to new players is a plus.

Not to mention that streamlining systems tends to help with making rulings on the fly as well.

Which edition you are using will be most helpful.   With each edition they change how frameworks operate and sometimes removing versions completely.   Others are optional rules that are not official to core, but can be used if GM feels it fits campaign

Are you actually starting with a fully build 350 pt character and then trying to increase them after?   or is this all theory craft and nothing is built yet?
 
If trying to grow a pre-made character, then what everyone suggests would be about right.  Increase a few skills a point or two, maybe add one or two 11- level skills to reflect new skills learned over the years.   As far as powers and abilities, decide if their powers should grow or just refine.   Grow:  add a DC or 2,  Refine:  add a version of ability that is 1/2 END or maybe a Flash ability for a Blaster to show learning how to make a low-power but high-brightness variant of the power.

If creating everything from scratch anyway... just build the at what you feel fits the role of the character and was seems reasonable for the time spend actve.  XP gains are going to be extremely variable from GM to GM and campaign, so it is hard to say that 1 year = X xps gained.  

I made the characters in the standard format for reference when I was making the custom sheets - nice to have that
 
So, 11 or less on 3D6 is exactly equivalent to 10 or better.  If the skill is 12 or less, it is +1 on the sheet, 13 or less +2 etc.
 
For combat, it is essentially the same, just add OCV to the roll and DCV to the target number, so attacking a DCV 5 opponent needs 15 or better to hit on 3D6+OCV.
 
It is all a matter of presentation but the process of simply adding and everything being a +something made those D20 adherents much more comfortable.

That's the issue. An extra "level" is half the initial cost. So 30 points gets you two levels.
 
I'm just sitting around having a beer, so check the rulebook, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

The key word in Package Deal is Deal.
 
Early on, there were Package Bonuses, which offset some of the cost of the package, and even some of the Characteristics you needed to buy. In return, the Package would include stuff that such a character should have, but wouldn't be all that useful in most games (and thus wouldn't be bought if you were strictly minmaxing). Such bonuses were eliminated later on.
 
The remaining benefit of using Packages is speed of character building. You don't have to plough through huge lists of stuff deciding what you need. Instead, you just pick a Package, buy appropriate Characteristics, and add a bit of stuff to make your character an individual. Much faster. If I was at home I would build a character in real time to show you how it works.

You may need a pallette cleanser after D&D, such as run Traveller for a fw months, as there is nearly NO character progression (especially stats) in that system, and without magic the players may start thinking different.

Then spring Fantasy Hero on them. 

It is something I do now for any game I intend to run.  It doesn't take too long and I get the sheets I want.
 
It is my conceit that character sheets are how the players interface with the game, the window into the setting and system.  I think most character sheets provided with RPGs are there to help players create characters, what I term "build sheets", rather than encourage them to play characters in the game to be run. 
 
I sat down and thought "what do my players "need" to play the game?", stripping away detail and numbers and putting in text and flavour I wanted my players to be looking at and thinking about.
 
I found it has given me a different perception about the system, helped me see the toolkit much better as just that, confidence to hide stuff the players probably won't care about.  It definitely made a difference to how my players engaged with the game.
 
In one instance I decided to present the system to look like D20.  All tasks required players to roll 10 or over to succeed in tasks and all skills presented as an adjustment to the roll (Bureaucracy +3).  That helped a lot of players to transition.
 
Doc

I monkey around with minimum and maximum stats for races; Dwarves have higher CON but lower DEX, Humans have higher PRE but lower EGO, etc.  Its a bit more complicated to build and I cannot figure out how to make Hero Designer give the proper templates, but it gives some variety

I had a look, not uploaded any Fantasy HERO sheets.   I did the sheets on this link using PowerPoint, looking for ways to play Justice Inc, Danger International and Champions with sheets designed to highlight the genre rather than the distemper but giving players the information they need to play the game.
 
Have a look, would be pretty simple to do the same for Fantasy HERO characters.
 
 

Generally its the skills and backgrounds that differentiate the characters, Stats will be similar unless someone wants to be "the strong man" or the "Sharp shooter", or the "Martial Artist." But then you see in the old movies that all the heroes were about the same body type, and nearly interchangeable, except the protagonist had that one talent, or bucket of PRE that made him the leader.

Talents and martial arts can make a big difference.  And specialization.  That's why I have spent a lot of time in my campaign coming up with enough really interesting, attractive, and exciting things to draw point spends, which makes people have to be more specific and narrow in their builds, creating specialization.  So yeah, you can all have 13-17 DEX which is a 1 point difference in rolls, but what you do with those rolls are more significant.

In games like D&D and Pathfinder your characteristics are more important at early levels, but after you start gaining levels their impact on the game diminishes and your class abilities start to make more difference.  For example, in pathfinder if I have a first level elven wizard with and 18 STR vs a fighter with a 10 STR the elven wizard will probably defeat the fighter.  The +4 to hit and damage from STR gives the wizard the advantage.  But as the characters gain levels the wizard quickly falls behind.  By 4th level the fighter has gained enough BAB and feats  and extra HP that the odds are now with the fighter.  With Fantasy Hero characters start out stronger than other games, but don’t progress as quickly. Starting Fantasy Hero characters are closer to mid-level characters than starting characters in other systems. 
 
The other thing to consider is how the stats define the character.  In other games any character can usually use any weapon they know how no matter what their STR score is.  In Pathfinder for example I can have a 10 STR and use a bastard sword.  I may not get the bonus to hit and damage, but I can use the sword.  In Fantasy Hero weapons have STR min you need to meet or you take penalties to hit.  To use a bastard sword in Fantasy Hero requires a 13 STR if used in two hands or a 15 STR if used in one hand. 
 
If you are playing in an earlier edition the higher base damage allows you to achieve a higher max damage.  Prior to 6th edition damage for KA was capped at twice the base damage.  This is recommended in 6th edition Fantasy Hero as well. Your 10 STR character in Fantasy Hero would be limited to using a short sword and doing 2d6 damage with skill level and martial arts.  Your 15 STR character could use a bastard sword one handed and do a max damage of 3d6.  If you have a 17 STR you could use a greatsword for 2d6 damage and max damage of 4d6.   An extra die or two may not seem significant but in the Hero system it is really is.  
 
The other thing you are not factoring is that the Hero System has a lot more stats than the D20 based games.  In those you have 6 stats; in Hero you have about 20 depending on the edition.  When you look at all the stats you are going to get a lot more variance than if you are only considering a few.  DCV is going to be a lot more important to the lightly armored warrior than the one in full plate and shield.  Many heavily armored warriors favor blocking over dodging so don’t need the same level of DCV as the light warrior.  To them OCV is more important.  
 
As to the balance Fantasy Hero is better balanced than most other systems.  By design a point-based system is all about balance.  You pretty much pay for everything you can do.  

For the longest time I only had the pack that came with the 4th Edition DM screen.  But those were SO helpful with my champions games... I used them for years.   Once HeroClix started to appear I transitioned over to a mix of Cardboard and Clix for use at the table.   Since then I found the full Modern Heroes pack but I have not cut them apart yet.   Sadly my Table gaming days are in decline for a long while now, most of what i do being online with things like discord chat.  But still have very found memories of these figures.

You do need to take into account when making skill rolls that you are doing so with 3 dice, which gives you a distribution curve rather than the flat probability result you get from a single 20-sided die.  Statistically speaking, there is a bigger step between 12- and 13- than there is between 11- and 12-.  A 14- isn't a guarantee, but highly probable, while an 8- is highly improbable.
 
The other thing about skills is that Hero has skill levels, while D&D is based on just your Characteristic scores (skill is rolled into levels).  This makes Hero more realistic and more flexible.  So don't just consider Characteristics when looking at different characters, but also the number of skill levels they have.  That makes a huge difference in how the character will play.
 
The actual characteristic scores for a character in D&D or in Hero are both typically going to be between 8 and 20.  A warrior-type will have higher score in STR, the wizard in INT, the rogue in DEX.  From that standpoint, you have the same variation in both games.  It is just that in Hero you will use skills to differentiate your characters, and because Hero is WAY more flexible with skills, you can customize your character to be anything you want rather than another D&D paladin clone or wizard clone that are nearly indistinguishable from each other.
 

I have always done something similar in my games and when teaching others to play.

(11+OCV) - 3d6 = DCV hit
 
People can adjust their math as needed and speeds things up a great deal.