Chris Goodwin

Even so, a warrior type is likely to have around 5-6 DEF armor, a sword and shield, maybe a couple of daggers, maybe a crossbow and 10 quarrels.  That... sounds not unlike a Multipower to me, for which they've paid no points.  Maybe STR 18 and 6-8 normal PD, for 11-14 total PD.
 
The wizard type could have all of that stuff too, but why would they, when they have a flaming bolt spell that does 3d6 RKA, a mystic shield for 10 PD/10 ED, a gust of wind (TK, 10 STR, AoE, plus Life Support), and eyes of the cat (Nightvision), for which they did pay points.  Whether or not those are in a Multipower.  
 
My point of view is that if you're specializing in weapons and armor, you're not paying points for them; in exchange, you're not building to CV/DC/DEF, but approaching it through character concept, Normal Characteristic Maxima, and Skills and Talents.  Whereas, if you're specializing in magic, you might be able to exceed "normal" DEF and DC on a regular basis, but that's a privilege for which you're paying points, again whether or not you're doing it through a Multipower.  

The nice thing about low fantasy is that mundane weapons, STR minimums and CHAR maximums, etc., will make the damage doubling less of a problem. If you were going to play all-out animé fantasy with ten foot flaming swords or whatever, it's a lot harder to cap the damage. The magic that does exist in low fantasy is more ritualistic in nature, and is also inherently limited by extended time constraints, rituals, etc.

I had magic roll just be a flat roll, with no modifiers for power, unless the spell had a disadvantage “Unstable”. But my FH games had a very different feel from others as they were low-medium Fantasy with a regionally defined magic schools. Having a magic roll defined you as one who could wield magic. What you did with it was the character’s business. 
 
The limitations were that all spells were GM defined and GM built until I deemed the player trustworthy enough to build their own. 

Ninja-Bear, Panpiper, Chris, Scott and Ternaugh 
    I really appreciate all the help.  I understand I don't have to follow RAW, but I like to in my first couple of times running a campaign so I get a feel and understand it.  That way I don't make some rulings that can wreck my game.  My group is great, we have been playing together for 30 years.  We are so old that we tried Hero 1st Edition because it was written with Rolemaster rules as well (our favorite game, before 6th edition Hero) and said let's wait until a new one comes out.
 
We are having a great time with it and are really into the Fantasy aspect, especially since we play Fantasy Grounds D&D 5E (which is a good edition of D&D) and will say ugh the level only allows us this.  Once you break through the initial task of understanding the mechanics it's hands down the best system for us.  We appreciate the Low Fantasy type worlds, but are discussing some dark magic, voodoo, witchcraft being in one of our campaigns.
 
Thanks again all.  I am sure I will have more questions and truly appreciate the warm welcome on these forums.

"John Q. Normal" (Champions II page 57) predates Espionage.  I'm not sure if that was when they were set for sure, but that section talks a lot about it.

26 in 3e as well.  
 
Thing is, at the time I think a "normal" was someone who wasn't putting on a super suit and fighting crime.  Champions didn't have "normal characteristic maxima".  I don't recall many GMs insisting that because your character didn't have the "super gene" or whatever that he couldn't have 26 DEX. 

Yeah, the 3e corebook was the core rulebook, as were the 1e and 2e corebooks. If you wanted the complete Champions experience, it was assumed that you were adding the II and III supplements to whichever corebook you had.  Most of the Skills were in Champions II, and if you wanted Transform, Piercing, Neutralization (Suppress), Healing, etc., you needed III.  
 
All of that is to say that if you want the full "3e experience", then by all means, add the II and III supplements if you want.  
 
(We also didn't have "edition wars" back then that I recall.  I don't think anyone was comparing their particular edition to figure out which one was "right" or anything, so in practice it was effectively "first-gen melange".  Nobody really checked to see that you were doing, for instance, EC or Growth or whatever in accordance with whichever rulebook the GM had.  That also meant that you might see characters in the same Enemies book or adventure module that did EC differently, if you bothered to get out the fine toothed comb and the red pencil.  In my group, most of the GMs had the 2e corebook, while those of us who came along at the tail end of first-gen had the 3e one, yet we were all playing in the same games.)

I've paged through the literature, and in my view, literary wizards who can use a sword are more common than those who cannot. Most fantasy literature treats wizards first and foremost as adventurers, mentors, or villains. Garion from the Belgariad uses one, the Grey Mouser, Lythande, some versions of Merlin, Gandalf, most of the wizards in Vance's Dying Earth, and Harry Potter. In movies you can add the evil wizard from the Golden Voyage of Sinbad and the kid from Dragonslayer. Wizards who don't use swords include the old wizard in Dragonslayer, Radaghast the Brown, Skeeve, the conjuror from Krull, Schmendrick.... largely old people and comic relief characters. Almost any character that springs to mind when you say "wizard," with the exception of Raistlin, uses a sword.

The concept of Normal Characteristic Maxima was introduced in Fantasy Hero/Justice Inc/Danger International and didn't exist in the Supers genre until 4th. Even after it was published, the Powers That Be just stuck it on a few power armor write-ups for concept and then crapped all over it with the "Defender Exploit", exempting powers bought through a Focus. I can't recall a single official Champions hero or villain that used it without the exploit.
 
Those high DEX's you see are most likely that character's primary defense mechanism.

26 in 3e as well.  
 
Thing is, at the time I think a "normal" was someone who wasn't putting on a super suit and fighting crime.  Champions didn't have "normal characteristic maxima".  I don't recall many GMs insisting that because your character didn't have the "super gene" or whatever that he couldn't have 26 DEX. 

Thanks Chris I appreciate all of your help.

They would make the magic roll at -6, then assuming that's successful they'd make their attack roll with their OCV against the target's DCV, along with modifiers for range, cover, Combat Skill Levels, combat maneuvers, and so on.  
 
There aren't typically caps on Skills, other than those set by the GM.  It's possible for characters to buy their Magic Skill up to the point where all of their spells are effectively at 17- (because any roll of 18 is an automatic failure), but there are ways for the GM to work around that.  

And to follow up... 
 
For instance, the GM could set up their magic system so that there are "tiers" of spells.  Every spell falls into one of four tiers: Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, and Master.  A spellcaster buys all of the spells at the highest tier they can cast with Requires A Magic Skill Roll at the -1 per 5 Active Points level.  Once they have learned a total of at least 10 Real Points worth of spells within the Basic tier they can buy those down to -1 per 10 Active Points; once all of their Basic tier spells are at -1 per 10 Active, they can start learning Intermediate tier spells at -1 per 5.  In order to start learning the Advanced spells, they need to get all of their Basic spells at -1 per 20, which then lets them in turn improve their Intermediate tier spells to -1 per 10, at which point they can start learning the Advanced spells at -1 per 5.  
 
Characters can throw fewer Active Points in a spell and improve their Magic Skill Roll.  Let's say I attempt my Fire Arrow spell at full power (-6 to my roll), but biff it.  My next Phase, I decide to throw it at half power instead (for -3 instead of -6) and succeed this time. 
 
There are other ways to go about it as well.  The GM might require that all spells be bought at -1 per 5 Active Points, but allow characters to make Complementary Skill Rolls with Knowledge or Science Skills related to the schools of magic, so that a character with a 60 Active Point fire spell, who would be casting at -12, might be able to make SS: Thaumatology and KS: Fire Magic Skill Rolls in order to gain bonuses.  
 
I've come up with a Talent known as Affinity.  You would buy it as Skill Levels, which can be allocated to any of the following: your Magic Skill Roll, your OCV, Damage Class (at 2 levels per +1 DC), or any mundane Skills relating to your affinity.  So a character might have Affinity: +3 with Fire, in which case they could get +3 to cast a Fire Spell, or they might use +1 of that on their casting roll and +2 on Damage Classes.  They might have spells in a different school that affect or modify fire magic, and the GM might let them use their Affinity with those as well; for instance, Dispel and Aid might be part of the Metamagic school, but the character with Fire Affinity can get their bonus when Dispelling or Aiding fire magic.  

And to follow up... 
 
For instance, the GM could set up their magic system so that there are "tiers" of spells.  Every spell falls into one of four tiers: Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, and Master.  A spellcaster buys all of the spells at the highest tier they can cast with Requires A Magic Skill Roll at the -1 per 5 Active Points level.  Once they have learned a total of at least 10 Real Points worth of spells within the Basic tier they can buy those down to -1 per 10 Active Points; once all of their Basic tier spells are at -1 per 10 Active, they can start learning Intermediate tier spells at -1 per 5.  In order to start learning the Advanced spells, they need to get all of their Basic spells at -1 per 20, which then lets them in turn improve their Intermediate tier spells to -1 per 10, at which point they can start learning the Advanced spells at -1 per 5.  
 
Characters can throw fewer Active Points in a spell and improve their Magic Skill Roll.  Let's say I attempt my Fire Arrow spell at full power (-6 to my roll), but biff it.  My next Phase, I decide to throw it at half power instead (for -3 instead of -6) and succeed this time. 
 
There are other ways to go about it as well.  The GM might require that all spells be bought at -1 per 5 Active Points, but allow characters to make Complementary Skill Rolls with Knowledge or Science Skills related to the schools of magic, so that a character with a 60 Active Point fire spell, who would be casting at -12, might be able to make SS: Thaumatology and KS: Fire Magic Skill Rolls in order to gain bonuses.  
 
I've come up with a Talent known as Affinity.  You would buy it as Skill Levels, which can be allocated to any of the following: your Magic Skill Roll, your OCV, Damage Class (at 2 levels per +1 DC), or any mundane Skills relating to your affinity.  So a character might have Affinity: +3 with Fire, in which case they could get +3 to cast a Fire Spell, or they might use +1 of that on their casting roll and +2 on Damage Classes.  They might have spells in a different school that affect or modify fire magic, and the GM might let them use their Affinity with those as well; for instance, Dispel and Aid might be part of the Metamagic school, but the character with Fire Affinity can get their bonus when Dispelling or Aiding fire magic.  

I technically skipped 2e, playing 1e with the changes introduced in Different Worlds #23, effectively updating the game to 2e. I later moved to 3e. My print copy of 2e was given to me by someone later.
 
I used Champions II and III with both 1e+ and 3e.

Yeah, the 3e corebook was the core rulebook, as were the 1e and 2e corebooks. If you wanted the complete Champions experience, it was assumed that you were adding the II and III supplements to whichever corebook you had.  Most of the Skills were in Champions II, and if you wanted Transform, Piercing, Neutralization (Suppress), Healing, etc., you needed III.  
 
All of that is to say that if you want the full "3e experience", then by all means, add the II and III supplements if you want.  
 
(We also didn't have "edition wars" back then that I recall.  I don't think anyone was comparing their particular edition to figure out which one was "right" or anything, so in practice it was effectively "first-gen melange".  Nobody really checked to see that you were doing, for instance, EC or Growth or whatever in accordance with whichever rulebook the GM had.  That also meant that you might see characters in the same Enemies book or adventure module that did EC differently, if you bothered to get out the fine toothed comb and the red pencil.  In my group, most of the GMs had the 2e corebook, while those of us who came along at the tail end of first-gen had the 3e one, yet we were all playing in the same games.)

26 in 3e as well.  
 
Thing is, at the time I think a "normal" was someone who wasn't putting on a super suit and fighting crime.  Champions didn't have "normal characteristic maxima".  I don't recall many GMs insisting that because your character didn't have the "super gene" or whatever that he couldn't have 26 DEX. 

One of the things I devised in a long, complex magic system (which I won't rehash here, but resembles what Chris Goodwin wrote earlier) is a Multipower associated with the wizard's spell book. They could "prepare" their slots via study and skill rolls, and if they ever wanted to change what they had available they'd have to study again and do their skill rolls. This was devised mostly as a buffer against the "just the right spell available for every possible situation" type of problems. Just another bit of gristle to chew on. 

I was the same way when I came back to HERO System after 25 years. I jumped from 3e to 6e and my mind was blown. I've found that the 6e HERO System Basic Rulebook is a really good, concise introduction to the rules. It's also what the Complete books are based on, but I use the Basic Rulebook for my new players because it is genre-neutral and doesn't get hung up on setting or genre specific rulings. And it's much less intimidating at 130 pages.

By the way, this fits just as well in your other discussion about basic combat rules. I used the same approach as most everyone described, using the Basic Rulebook in order to minimize the technical shit-ton of information a new person has to sift through. This is truly a problem I deal with regularly as I'm teaching complete newbies to the HERO System, as well as some who are completely new to roleplaying in general.

I know it's for the last edition, and so the characteristics aren't separated and a couple of other minor differences, but frankly, this is one of the best intro-to word-light _complete_ rules sets and how-to-plays, and as far as I care, it has _never_ been recommended enough:
 
 
 
It's probably the only rule set that I have nearly as many of as I have 2e rules sets.
 
If you're curious about it, you can find a low-brow review on youtube; it starts about halfway through here:
 
 
 
has some technical issues here:
 
 
 
And concludes here:
 
 
 
 

Increasing the cost is really just another way of decreasing the amount. If I'm running high fantasy, I don't necessarily want to say no. Like Conan probably has STR 25. which is fine, but I don't necessarily wanting everyone to have STR 25. Costs affect behaviors, it's as simple as that. Maxima says, I want people to be more or less "normal" people but with skills, talents, and spells. But if someone wants to push that, they certainly can.
It's also training wheels from systems where characters are built from the ground up, rather than the top down. It's a lot more clear to just set the Maxima in place than say, "Uh, why do you have STR 30?"
"What, it's 20 points? Nothing here says not to spend 20 points on Strength."

For what it's worth, Characteristics as Powers has been around since 1e.
 
There was just a different mindset in the early days of RPGs, I think.  The rules were smaller, thinner, easier to digest.  The general trend was "it's legal because it doesn't say no and it doesn't screw up anything we've got planned for this adventure."  It was more "what can I do within the confine of these rules?" than today's tendency of "what do these rules say I can do?"  It is from out of exactly that mindset that the first Ninja HERO was born!  
 
Though for what it's worth, there are examples of Characteristics taking Focus and Only in Hero ID, which seems pretty clearly something for a power-esque build. (I am not terribly familiar with 3e, as I just cribbed what I wanted and jammed it into the ol' HR notes, but in 1 and 2e, these examples are scattered through the Advantages and Limitations sections.  I suspect that's probably where you'll find them in 3e as well.)  At a later date, (turning in early tonight I deserve it    ), I may find time to try to dredge you up something that specifically says "this is an okay thing to do," but at the moment, I can't think of anything other than the Modifers sections.

And I’m proud of his secret Identity: Paul E. Moore.

There might very well be a reference to that in 1e.  The reason for doing it that way back then was that the noncombat multiple for Flight was calculated differently, such that NC Flight was always ridiculously high.