Chris Goodwin

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.

According to the subject line, the betterness of either figured or or non-figured formerly-figured characteristics.
 
However, we are humans, and there have been a few drifts.   
 
 

For me it's Robot Warriors. 
 
I hadn't actually played Robot Warriors from 1988 until lockdown was easing.  So 2021?  I ran it with 6th edition for characters and combat and Robot Warriors mecha design rules.  And it was every bit as fun and played 99% identical to how it played in 1988. 
 
What were we talking about again?

Breaking down everything into abstractions is a good idea... in the abstract. 
 
But we're people, who don't think about these kinds of things in the abstract.  We're playing a game in which our "playing pieces" are intended to represent people. 
 
We're not playing a physics engine or a biology simulator.  I'm fond of saying "good enough is good enough", and I think that what we've got in 6e is good enough.  The mix of stats and the breakdowns and all. 
 
If we keep breaking everything into pieces parts, you could have a character who can lift 12.5 tons but can't damage a normal person by punching them, but I can't imagine a person (which is, again, what our playing pieces are supposed to be) who can do that. 
 
It's nice to keep some concrete representation.

I have no dog in this fight, but have enjoyed the discussion immensely; my thanks to everyone who had something to say on the subject.
 
I did want to visit that comment above for a moment.  First, I would like to mention that before you can decide that, you must first decide if the hit location chart is going to be in play.  If it is, remember that depending on how well you roll there, a normal can one-shot a normal, and a super can accidentally kill one.
 
If you are using the hit location chart, you may want to put a little extra thought into what defenses and what levels of them are acceptable.
 
 
I also wanted to comment that when that epiphany hit me--  "Rule of X means how many hits before they drop," I walked away from HERO for almost a decade.  All that I had percieved as a precise, detailed system for resolving combat, etc, all boiled down to "how many times do I want them to roll to hit before it is over?"
 
At that moment, I became a narrator telling exactly the story I wanted to tell and they had no idea that everything they did was futile:  I could pre-determine the outcome of every battle by setting the villains such they could absorb one more hit than could the heroes, or that they could "Typically" drop an opponent with one less strike, or reverse those, and the heroes were nearly gauranteed victory.
 
Not by their actions, so much, but because I could decide on Thursday who was going to fall or reign supreme on Saturday, and because everything was built within the required campaign limits, no one ever doubted that it was all on the turn of the now-almost-pointless dice.
 
So I walked away.  I went back to Traveller, some Space Opera, some Space Master, lots of Car Wars and a few other things, but it was almost ten years before I thought about going back to Champions / HERO.  Eventually we slid a then-in-progress Traveller game onto the Champions wheels, and it worked out well enough, plus allowed for a lot of creative freedom.
 
We used it for a couple of short fantasy games, and that was working great until I felt myself matching characters and their equipment do campaign limits and realized that I could again simply replace everything with odd-or-even and three hit points.
 
Anyway, I obviously did come back, but in the examples set by Superman and Batman or Wonder Woman and some guy with a wingsuit and a club or pretty much _anyone_ and the Flash, I have pretty much ignored forcing any limits on characters or the game.
 
If the writers can find something for Batman to do that really does contribute to what Superman is doing, then I can find a way to make a team up between Ultra-God and the Bohemian Bedazzler work out as reasonable, too.
 
I wont pretend that it isnt hard or that everyone should try it, but it has brought back to me the fun I used to have with HERO before I realized it was "knock three times for victory!"  when using campaign limits.
 
 

Precisely:  it actually makes it both easier on the GM, who no longer has to keep pressing danger / horror / inevitable outcome, and more tangible to the players, as the risk is not only real and easy to grasp, but it comes with management toola that are in their own hands.
 
First, I have do say it is an idea I have been toying with _in this specific application_ (I use it a lot for magic spells to enchant others-- the fuel charge, I mean) since someone here a few weeks back mentioned a comic book-  Strikeforce Mortuary?  I dont remember; I remember it was an odd name, but definitely Strikeforce something.  Anyway, the premise was you took some procedure, got superpowers, and were dead within X time, but (I think)  didnt know exactly when.
 
Putting all the powers and abilities on a shared duel charge seemed like an ideal base for this idea, which put me in mind of that god awful movie about the guy who escaped from Hell and his entire existence was on a fuel charge.
 
Anyway, --
 
No, wait.  There is a better place.
 
 
 
 
 
Agreed, but I would be good with one of two possible uses:
 
First, as you state, the campaign has a specific goal, and upon completion of this goal, the game is over.  This means the characters have at least a chance of surviving and then putting down their super powers and living out whatever remains of their lives.
 
I would be equally happy with a campaign that _does have_ a logical "good ending"  (repeling the alien invaders and saving the world; destroting the last of the elder horrors before he devours the sun-  whatever)  that may not ever actually be attained within the lives of a particular set of characters, but everything that the characters do achieve moves closer to that goal, and makes it more attainable by those who will come later, whether that be another batch of PCs or not.
 
In short, so long as the decisions of the characters have _significant_ impact on making the goal more attainable- so long as success- even if attained by others later- is obviously only attainable because of what these characters do--
 
Well, I would be good with that, too.
 
 
 
There it is.
 
There is the better place. 
 
There are a lot of things I have toyed with during this thought exercise, and specifically for that reason:   suppose, like in Strikeforce Whooziwhatsis, the end goal is noble sacrifice?  Suppose it is important to the overall story that at least one character does in fact die, or that at least one death be completely  inevitable (you grimdark jackass, you.    ).
 
Roll a die every day.  Deduct either the STUN or BODY (or both) from the pool every day.
 
BODY damage affects the pool.   Any time a character takes BODY damage, some portion (any portion, even 200 percent if you like) is deducted from the pool.
 
Crises- deeply stressful situations like overcoming a psychological limitation or having to make an EGO check-  if a roll is failed, an amount of points related to the failure is deducted.
 
Ghoulishness-  perhaps these abilities come with ability to draw upon the pools of others as well as or instead of your own?
 
More heroic:  some sort of minor (or major, even) healing ability is granted to everyone who gains these fuel charge powers, but not only is the END xost of the power paid from the pool, but all "healed" points are paid out of the pool as well?
 
Certainly "roll your daily deduction" drives home the ticking of a clockspring that will never be wound again, aa does mking the pool a tertiary damage tracker of sorts, but don't forget the dramatic potential of making it very, very difficult for a noble character to _not_ use his abilities.
 
 
 

Breaking down everything into abstractions is a good idea... in the abstract. 
 
But we're people, who don't think about these kinds of things in the abstract.  We're playing a game in which our "playing pieces" are intended to represent people. 
 
We're not playing a physics engine or a biology simulator.  I'm fond of saying "good enough is good enough", and I think that what we've got in 6e is good enough.  The mix of stats and the breakdowns and all. 
 
If we keep breaking everything into pieces parts, you could have a character who can lift 12.5 tons but can't damage a normal person by punching them, but I can't imagine a person (which is, again, what our playing pieces are supposed to be) who can do that. 
 
It's nice to keep some concrete representation.

Breaking down everything into abstractions is a good idea... in the abstract. 
 
But we're people, who don't think about these kinds of things in the abstract.  We're playing a game in which our "playing pieces" are intended to represent people. 
 
We're not playing a physics engine or a biology simulator.  I'm fond of saying "good enough is good enough", and I think that what we've got in 6e is good enough.  The mix of stats and the breakdowns and all. 
 
If we keep breaking everything into pieces parts, you could have a character who can lift 12.5 tons but can't damage a normal person by punching them, but I can't imagine a person (which is, again, what our playing pieces are supposed to be) who can do that. 
 
It's nice to keep some concrete representation.

Well, in another thread I just learned that I was apparently the only GM who saw an inhetent advantageous version of Uncontrolled.
 
Does that count?
 
I have mentioned several times allowing 1/8 level advantages or limitations for "realistically. Yes; it is limited, but not much or not often" limitations and similarly trivial advantages ("extra STUN multiplier only against chronic smokers" being one I will never forget)
 
One,thing I assumed most folks would allow- up until a casual discussion with our own Chris Goodwin, that is-  was advantages with disadvantages on them to limit the advantage.  A favorite use of this amongst most of my players was putting a limited amount of range of on normally unranged powers (such as Drains).  Thus, they would have the advantage Ranged with the limitations "reduced range," recorded as Range(reduced range) X
 
Where X was the range limit.  The disadvantage did not modify the cost of the power construct, but the value of the Advantage.  If an Advantage worth +1/2 took a modifying Disadvantage worth -1/2, then the result was new "custom advantage" with a value equal to 1/2 of the original Advantage value, or in this instance, +1/4.
 
Similarly, Lumitations could take advantages to...  Well, the best way to say it is "reduce the limit on the power" or "limit the limitation."    A limitation worth -1/2 that is modified by an advantage worth +1/2 has a new value of -1/4.  Should any modified Limitation end up with a positive value, refigure ("pedicure?!"  Really, autocorrect?  Really?)  it as a modified advantage; do the oposite for modified aevantages that end up with a negative value.
 
I know (and mostly reject, on behalf my points-paying players) that newer editions state "you don't have to use all of what you pay for" or "use only the amount that is right for your concept, but I find that no player, upon having paid the full cost of Zero Endurance will willingly pay 1/4 END when it is much more advantageous to tweak his concept a bit so that he has full access to what he paid for. "Build what you want" and "get what you pay for" are going to but heads constantly when you are expected to pay for more than what you want but not use all of what you paid for.  (This is one of the two reasons I have never adopted the two-steps-to-Zero-END-cost first presented in 4e).
 
Anyway, out of time; I have to run.
 
 

Iena 
 
There are, as typical in HERO, a lot of ways to implement this kind of stuff.  It is for you to sort it out and write it up. 
 
One example, and I stress that, for limiting the points ploughed into Magic Skill might be to implement a system in the game world where folk are inducted into magical colleges, master to apprentice, overseen by one (or many) magical college.  The induction into the arts means that the apprentice must satisfy in-game requirements as well as spending character points for skill levels.  This would show that the apprentice is delving into the mysteries, one after another.  You might do that in-game with a series of quests that the wizard must undertake (and persuade his fellows to do them when other, more lucrative opportunities abound) or you might do it by putting pre-requisites on levels on the Magic Skill such as needing 14- in Arcane Mythic Writing before you can purchase +1 in Magic.  A series of pre-requisites means that the player needs to spend a lot of points broadening out the magician to increase his game effectiveness (though those broad skills should be drawn out by the GM to make the points spent worthwhile).
 
As for limiting the number of spells, that is really all in how the spells are drawn up.  I will provide one possibility. You can put a prerequisite that a spell must be memorised through evening or morning study to before it can be used.  You can provide the magician with a free END reserve (I personally dont like charging characters for things that limit them) with a set amount of END within it that recharges once per day (but only if the character gets a good night's rest).  The player can then decide which spells he wishes to memorise, up to the limit of the END in the reserve.  The spells should be bought such that they can only be used with END from the reserve, not personal END from the character.
 
You can use this kind of thing to beef up the drama too.  A wizard "might" be able to push END into the reserve by spending BODY, again if you decide to build it that way.  Though I would make this a side effect of BODY drain where the recovery of that BODY is hugely delayed - to ensure it cannot simply be fixed by a judicious healing spell. Everything is possible if you think hard enough about how you want the mechanics to work.
 
Do the thinking, use D&D as the basis and then think of all the things you wished had been included in that system and you can bake them into yours.  When you have the detail, come back and people here will give you at least one, if not more, way to get what you want from your magic system.
 
 
Doc
 
PS: your English is INFINITELY better than my Italian, kudos.

I propose (and have previously posted about) a new Power that I'm calling Extras.  It's basically the Power equivalent to a generic Perk, and I've shamelessly ripped it off from M&M's Feature power. The generic Extra would have a cost of 1-10 points, and would give the character some minor helpful ability that isn't otherwise covered by a regular Power, or that the GM feels that no one needs to bother working out with a Power build.  If it's through a realistic gadget of some kind, it's half the cost, on the theory that it's replaceable but otherwise would be considered an OAF; if you need any more definition than that, you'd use the full cost and apply whatever Advantages and Limitations you want.  
 
The ability to create light could be considered an Extra.  If you can, for instance, cast a Light spell, it might cost 3-10 points depending on amount of light &c, and half of that -- 1-5 points -- for a flashlight.  If you want it to be a Maglite or something similar that you could bash someone over the head with, go back to the 3-10 points, apply OAF, and buy a couple of dice of HA through the same OAF.  
 

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.
 

Yes;and you are welcome.  That was my own collection that was sacrificed for the initial scans.
 
Favorite article?
 
Swarms.
 
 

This isn't how any other power with AOE works, though.  If you have a 10d6 Blast with AOE, every target in the area takes 10d6.

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.

I always felt that the "disads give you points to build with" feature was an elegant Hero thing like figured characteristics.  Now I can reluctantly see the value of removing figured from the characteristics but I cannot figure out why to restate things so that complications are just... well, pretty much optional now, they don't give you any points.

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).

On page 37 of the 6e v1 pg 37 it states that the Complications of a Template do count against the Total Matching 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?

I may have mentioned here and there a Star Wars Hero game... I've now been running it for a couple of months.  I've written up a document for it, which contains rules info and session write-ups, here. 

I had a GM once who, after our characters were fully built, gave us an extra 10 free points that had to be spent on "useless" KS's and similar background Skills.  You could tweak the amounts. 
 
It's easier to give than take away, and it's easier to say "You get 175 points plus 10 points worth of free background skills" than it is to say "You get 185 points but you must spend 10 of them on background skills". 

The Skill vs. Skill part sounds like Change Environment.  Negating natural healing could be as simple as a REC Drain.  Power Defense can work against Aid and Healing if the character wants it to... so Power Defense, Usable As Attack, controlled by the grantor, would do just that.

Created two new (and related) talents for Fantasy Here which would work for both 5th Edition and 6th Edition, and I am checking to see what others think of it. The following are the talents:
 
Armor Mastery I
Armor (4 PD/4 ED) (12 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), Must be Aware of Attack (-1/2), Restrainable (-1/2), Only Half as Much as Worn Armor (-1/2), Not verse Critical Hit (-1/4), Not verse AE (-1/4))
3 Points
 
Armor Mastery II
Hardened (+1/4) for up to 36 Active Points of Worn Armor (9 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), Must be Aware of Attack (-1/2), Restrainable (-1/2), Not verse Critical Hit (-1/4), Not verse AE (-1/4)
3 Points
 
This talent is for characters who are masters at wearing armor, shifting in such ways where attacks hit the best defended portions of the armor. Each can only be purchased once of course, and Armor Mastery I must be purchased before Armor Mastery II. Attached is a Prefab file for it. Please let me know what you think.
 
Armor Mastery.hdp