Killer Shrike

Consider me already heading there on the 8th

Ok, so here are my thoughts:
 
1) Normally if 1 player can't make it I prefer to still meet and work around it. 
2) If two or more can't make it, I make a judgement call based upon where the the characters of the missing players are at narratively and whether or not their absence can be worked around without causing more trouble than it is worth.
3) However, currently the team is in a critical place where I actually want everyone at the table. Particularly considering we just spent an entire episode / session jumping thru the necessary hoops to get the team back together in a way that avoided a deus ex machina.
4) Unfortunately due to the holidays the current "action" has gotten stretched out in real world time over the course of a couple of calendar months and I feel like it has sucked away the urgency / emotional impact of the stakes involved for the characters. In the game world, the stakes are quite high, time is of the essence, and the situation is quite dire. In the real world, it may be hard for some of us at the end of January to remember and / or care about stuff that happened in November and to still feel the anxiety and engagement I hope was present when the current leg of the adventure unspooled.
 
Now, real life presents us with challenges to all being in the same place at the same time and I get it. Work is important. Family is important. Shit happens, and when push comes to shove meeting to play a game or indulge a hobby is obviously of lower priority. However, I feel like we have a good thing going with this group and I at least am having fun with the campaign and would like for us to find a way to move past all of the recent disruption and continue. 
 
So...here's what I want to happen and then we can discuss if we all agree and if we can make it happen:
 
I want us to all be present for the next session, which will hopefully be Feb 8, and for us to all make an attempt to re-engage with the in-game narrative and try to get back into the headspace of feeling trepidation for the characters and caring about what's going to happen next. For my part, I will take a beat at the beginning of the session to reframe the scene and do my best to sink the hook for all of you. 
 
If some of us are at a point where we need to take a step back from the campaign and focus on other things, or if we are tired of the campaign and don't want to continue that's ok too...I just ask that we all be transparent about where our heads are at.

Ok, so here are my thoughts:
 
1) Normally if 1 player can't make it I prefer to still meet and work around it. 
2) If two or more can't make it, I make a judgement call based upon where the the characters of the missing players are at narratively and whether or not their absence can be worked around without causing more trouble than it is worth.
3) However, currently the team is in a critical place where I actually want everyone at the table. Particularly considering we just spent an entire episode / session jumping thru the necessary hoops to get the team back together in a way that avoided a deus ex machina.
4) Unfortunately due to the holidays the current "action" has gotten stretched out in real world time over the course of a couple of calendar months and I feel like it has sucked away the urgency / emotional impact of the stakes involved for the characters. In the game world, the stakes are quite high, time is of the essence, and the situation is quite dire. In the real world, it may be hard for some of us at the end of January to remember and / or care about stuff that happened in November and to still feel the anxiety and engagement I hope was present when the current leg of the adventure unspooled.
 
Now, real life presents us with challenges to all being in the same place at the same time and I get it. Work is important. Family is important. Shit happens, and when push comes to shove meeting to play a game or indulge a hobby is obviously of lower priority. However, I feel like we have a good thing going with this group and I at least am having fun with the campaign and would like for us to find a way to move past all of the recent disruption and continue. 
 
So...here's what I want to happen and then we can discuss if we all agree and if we can make it happen:
 
I want us to all be present for the next session, which will hopefully be Feb 8, and for us to all make an attempt to re-engage with the in-game narrative and try to get back into the headspace of feeling trepidation for the characters and caring about what's going to happen next. For my part, I will take a beat at the beginning of the session to reframe the scene and do my best to sink the hook for all of you. 
 
If some of us are at a point where we need to take a step back from the campaign and focus on other things, or if we are tired of the campaign and don't want to continue that's ok too...I just ask that we all be transparent about where our heads are at.

Ok, so here are my thoughts:
 
1) Normally if 1 player can't make it I prefer to still meet and work around it. 
2) If two or more can't make it, I make a judgement call based upon where the the characters of the missing players are at narratively and whether or not their absence can be worked around without causing more trouble than it is worth.
3) However, currently the team is in a critical place where I actually want everyone at the table. Particularly considering we just spent an entire episode / session jumping thru the necessary hoops to get the team back together in a way that avoided a deus ex machina.
4) Unfortunately due to the holidays the current "action" has gotten stretched out in real world time over the course of a couple of calendar months and I feel like it has sucked away the urgency / emotional impact of the stakes involved for the characters. In the game world, the stakes are quite high, time is of the essence, and the situation is quite dire. In the real world, it may be hard for some of us at the end of January to remember and / or care about stuff that happened in November and to still feel the anxiety and engagement I hope was present when the current leg of the adventure unspooled.
 
Now, real life presents us with challenges to all being in the same place at the same time and I get it. Work is important. Family is important. Shit happens, and when push comes to shove meeting to play a game or indulge a hobby is obviously of lower priority. However, I feel like we have a good thing going with this group and I at least am having fun with the campaign and would like for us to find a way to move past all of the recent disruption and continue. 
 
So...here's what I want to happen and then we can discuss if we all agree and if we can make it happen:
 
I want us to all be present for the next session, which will hopefully be Feb 8, and for us to all make an attempt to re-engage with the in-game narrative and try to get back into the headspace of feeling trepidation for the characters and caring about what's going to happen next. For my part, I will take a beat at the beginning of the session to reframe the scene and do my best to sink the hook for all of you. 
 
If some of us are at a point where we need to take a step back from the campaign and focus on other things, or if we are tired of the campaign and don't want to continue that's ok too...I just ask that we all be transparent about where our heads are at.

Sorry for delayed response, I've had a grueling week.
 
I'll be running a session today (January 11, 2020) @ At Ease Games, starting at 5pm. 

Yeah. Change Environment is not supposed to grant bonuses, which is a rather arbitrary ruling and one I don't agree with.  Personally, I think the best way to model light is using the Change Environment model to grant +PER to sight as normal darkness is mechanically represented by -PER penalties to sight.
 
Images only for light is to me a very awkward construct and basically a handwave. It is however the official way to do it. Personally, I just rely on common sense for this kind of thing...I don't really care what the mechanical representation is per se, I consider the intensity of the light source and distance from the light source and assess a lighting conditions PER penalty (including -0) the same as I would for an ambient light source.

It is a mechanic that encourages "Alpha Strikes" which are usually unhealthy in the long term. It synergizes with AoE's as they are substantially less impacted by taking a OCV penalty. It adds variance to combat calculus, making it more difficult as the GM to gauge likely outcomes and balance encounters. And so on.
 
But, you know, nothing preventing you from trying it out.

I'm hoping to resume running sessions on Jan 11th if everyone can make it.

I'm hoping to resume running sessions on Jan 11th if everyone can make it.

{shrug} If you aren't concerned about the potential opportunity for game imbalance, let people buy PSL's vs Multiple Attack penalties. Worst case scenario, if the character ends up being too good at killing off multiple targets and is sucking the challenge out of encounters, just add more goons to soak up their attacks. 

Up front, Doc Democracy is correct.
 
I find it convenient to think about PSL's in this way: they can be applied to external situational penalties, not intrinsic penalties. 6e says this on the subject (v1 p84):
A character cannot use OPSLs to increase OCV generally, to increase the damage an attack does, or to increase DCV. He can only use them to reduce or counteract a specific type of negative OCV modifier. A character cannot buy “generic” OPSLs that apply to more than one negative OCV modifier; he must specify which penalty a OPSL applies against when he buys it. Nor can he buy OPSLs to counteract the standard OCV penalty imposed by a Combat Maneuver (such as the -3 OCV for a Grab By), or to counteract the Unfamiliar Weapon penalty (6E2 51). And that checks out against the provided examples...range, hit loc, and throwing penalties are all ambient external modifiers that apply across the board to all characters and attacks by default. On the other hand the -3 OCV penalty for Grab By is intrinsic to the Maneuver, and the Unfamiliar Weapon penalty is intrinsic to the character themselves. 
 
Multiple Attack might initially seem weird because the Maneuver's OCV penalty is variable, dependent on the total number of attacks and thus it might seem more like a situational penalty than something intrinsic. However Multiple Attack is technically a Maneuver and while its OCV penalty is variable in the abstract, once it has been calculated for a specific usage it is no different than the -3 OCV for Grab By. For a similar case of a Maneuver with a variable penalty, see Move Thru.
 
---
 
The distinction between what PSL's can and cannot be applied to does seem arbitrary and unnecessary to me in principle, however from an accounting perspective it does make sense that it should never be possible to buy PSL's to offset a penalty for less cost than paying for an ability that would allow you to not take the penalty in the first place. 
 
The reality is, PSL's could be eliminated entirely from the system, and could be replaced as a limitation taken on Skill levels and Combat Skill Levels..."Only to Offset Penalties". The value of that lim is debatable, but I'll just swag a -1/2 as a placeholder. 
 
 
 
 

Up front, Doc Democracy is correct.
 
I find it convenient to think about PSL's in this way: they can be applied to external situational penalties, not intrinsic penalties. 6e says this on the subject (v1 p84):
A character cannot use OPSLs to increase OCV generally, to increase the damage an attack does, or to increase DCV. He can only use them to reduce or counteract a specific type of negative OCV modifier. A character cannot buy “generic” OPSLs that apply to more than one negative OCV modifier; he must specify which penalty a OPSL applies against when he buys it. Nor can he buy OPSLs to counteract the standard OCV penalty imposed by a Combat Maneuver (such as the -3 OCV for a Grab By), or to counteract the Unfamiliar Weapon penalty (6E2 51). And that checks out against the provided examples...range, hit loc, and throwing penalties are all ambient external modifiers that apply across the board to all characters and attacks by default. On the other hand the -3 OCV penalty for Grab By is intrinsic to the Maneuver, and the Unfamiliar Weapon penalty is intrinsic to the character themselves. 
 
Multiple Attack might initially seem weird because the Maneuver's OCV penalty is variable, dependent on the total number of attacks and thus it might seem more like a situational penalty than something intrinsic. However Multiple Attack is technically a Maneuver and while its OCV penalty is variable in the abstract, once it has been calculated for a specific usage it is no different than the -3 OCV for Grab By. For a similar case of a Maneuver with a variable penalty, see Move Thru.
 
---
 
The distinction between what PSL's can and cannot be applied to does seem arbitrary and unnecessary to me in principle, however from an accounting perspective it does make sense that it should never be possible to buy PSL's to offset a penalty for less cost than paying for an ability that would allow you to not take the penalty in the first place. 
 
The reality is, PSL's could be eliminated entirely from the system, and could be replaced as a limitation taken on Skill levels and Combat Skill Levels..."Only to Offset Penalties". The value of that lim is debatable, but I'll just swag a -1/2 as a placeholder. 
 
 
 
 

I'm hoping to resume running sessions on Jan 11th if everyone can make it.

6Ev2 p62
 
GRAB
This Maneuver allows a character to get a hold
on another character or object.

Making A Grab
To Grab an opponent, a character must make
an Attack Roll with appropriate modifiers. If
successful, he has Grabbed his opponent. (As
described below under Escaping From Grabs, the
victim immediately gets a Casual STR roll to break
free, if desired.)
 
SQUEEZING, SLAMMING, AND THROWING
In many cases, a character Grabs his enemy
just to hold onto him or prevent him from doing
something, but sometimes the Grabber wants
to hurt the target at the same time. A character
who has Grabbed someone can do either of the
following:

Squeeze him. This does regular STR damage
(STR/5 in d6 of Normal Damage) to the victim;
the character retains his hold on the victim.
Slam him against something (such as the
ground or a wall). This does regular STR
damage (STR/5 in d6 of Normal Damage) to
the victim; the character retains his hold on the
victim.

Throw him, using the Throw Combat
Maneuver (6E2 80), which requires him to let
go of the victim.

If the Grabber chooses to Squeeze, Slam,
or Throw the Grabbed character in the same
Segment in which he (the Grabber) successfully
Grabbed him, the Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
does not require an Attack Roll (it automatically
succeeds) and takes no time. A character cannot
Hold this “free” action; he must use it in that same
Segment. If the Grabber wants to Squeeze, Slam,
or Throw his victim in a later Phase, doing so is an
Attack Action (it doesn’t automatically succeed,
requires an Attack Roll, and so forth). Assume any
Grab-and-Throw is a Standing Throw, unless the
Grabber begins a Phase with a Grabbed victim
and the GM lets him move before making the
Throw. If the Attack Roll for a Squeeze or Slam
fails, the victim takes no damage but remains
Grabbed.

After performing a Grab, in that same Segment
a character can only Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
the target as an immediate attack. He can’t use
any other maneuvers or attacks (unless the GM
so permits, and even in that case, using another
attack should mean releasing the Grab in most
circumstances). In later Phases he can use any
attacks he wants (provided he has the free limbs or
other means to do so).

If a Grab-based Maneuver (such as Martial
Grab) provides a STR bonus, that bonus applies
solely for the purposes of holding on to the target.
It doesn’t increase the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing the target, increase the
distance a target can be thrown, or have any
other effect. Similarly, characters can use Combat
Skill Levels to increase their OCV or DCV when
Grabbing, but not the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing.

A character cannot use his Hand-To-Hand
Attack to improve the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing a Grabbed character. Nor
can characters Haymaker Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
damage. Grab-and-Throw damage doesn’t get a
bonus from the velocity of the Grabbed character
the way a Martial Throw does.
 
-----------------------
Later in the book 6e adds a lot of extra complexity for the specific case of a character throwing another character at a third (or more) character(s), with a special subsystem on 6Ev2 p124 (disconnected from both the rules for Grabs and Throws) that basically ignores the general rules for throwing and asserts a different model entirely.
 
Characters As Weapons
Characters often like to pick up an opponent
and use him as an impromptu club or missile with
which to attack another foe. This has the benefit of
hurting both enemies.

Before a character can use another character
as a club/missile, he must Grab the club/missile. If
the club/missile is conscious (even Stunned), this
requires the normal Attack Roll and imposes the
normal penalties to the character’s OCV and DCV.
If he’s unconscious, the character still has to make
a Grab, but suffers only the standard -1 OCV
and -2 DCV penalties (he doesn’t have the usual
halved DCV in general, and halved OCV against
other targets, if his Grab succeeds).

Once the character has successfully Grabbed
the club/missile, he may use the victim as a club
against any target in HTH Combat range, or as
a missile against any target within range of his
Throw (see Throw, 6E2 80). To do this, he must
make a separate Attack Roll against that target.
Unless the GM rules otherwise, this is a separate
Attack Action, so it cannot be performed in the
same Phase when the character performs his Grab.
The standard CV modifiers for Grab apply, and
the GM may impose other modifiers to reflect
the circumstances. If the attack succeeds, both
the club/missile and the target take the character’s
STR damage. (See 6E2 82 for rules regarding
missed Throws.)

Using another character as a club entails a
weapon Size/Shape penalty of -2 OCV (if the
“club” is unconscious) or -4 OCV (if he’s awake). A
character used as a missile is neither balanced nor
aerodynamic (minimum of -4 OCV). These penalties
are in addition to any the character suffers for
performing a Grab.
-------------------------------
So basically, in the case of throwing a character at another character, 6e wants you to wait until the next phase and make a separate attack roll, and applies a -4 OCV (if the thrown character is conscious) on top of any other penalties, etc. This is, to me, a very inconsistent special casing / blatant nerfing.
 
I really do not like the 6e special casing for this fundamentally true-to-fiction move; having grabbed and thrown people in real life...including into other people...I can tell you that it generally did not require me to latch on, wait 3-4 seconds, and then throw them. Rather, it happens as a single continuous flow of grab, pivot, and release in a direction determined by body mechanics and momentum, and the thrown person collides with whatever happens to be in the space their body is propelled into whether that be one or more objects, or one or more other people, a wall, or the floor. Same thing with a shove or a redirection.
 

I’ve allowed too without Multiple Attack . I think I allowed a Hero point spent.  New motto for 2020 for me is less getting hidebound for RAW and more of does this make sense in a common sense or dramatic sense?

This actually came up relatively recently in actual play.
 
I exercise the "Unless the GM rules otherwise," clause and allow a Grab & Throw as a single action, and I treat a thrown person as a person-sized & shaped AoE. I assign either or both the unerodynamic / unbalanced penalties and potentially other penalties depending on the situation and how the movement is described / what makes sense to me given the givens. 
 
I do not treat this as a Multiple Attack.
 
A secondary target who is aware of the attack can abort to Dive For Cover, or may abort to attempt to catch the thrown person / object and potentially reduce or cancel the damage depending on what makes sense. 

6Ev2 p62
 
GRAB
This Maneuver allows a character to get a hold
on another character or object.

Making A Grab
To Grab an opponent, a character must make
an Attack Roll with appropriate modifiers. If
successful, he has Grabbed his opponent. (As
described below under Escaping From Grabs, the
victim immediately gets a Casual STR roll to break
free, if desired.)
 
SQUEEZING, SLAMMING, AND THROWING
In many cases, a character Grabs his enemy
just to hold onto him or prevent him from doing
something, but sometimes the Grabber wants
to hurt the target at the same time. A character
who has Grabbed someone can do either of the
following:

Squeeze him. This does regular STR damage
(STR/5 in d6 of Normal Damage) to the victim;
the character retains his hold on the victim.
Slam him against something (such as the
ground or a wall). This does regular STR
damage (STR/5 in d6 of Normal Damage) to
the victim; the character retains his hold on the
victim.

Throw him, using the Throw Combat
Maneuver (6E2 80), which requires him to let
go of the victim.

If the Grabber chooses to Squeeze, Slam,
or Throw the Grabbed character in the same
Segment in which he (the Grabber) successfully
Grabbed him, the Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
does not require an Attack Roll (it automatically
succeeds) and takes no time. A character cannot
Hold this “free” action; he must use it in that same
Segment. If the Grabber wants to Squeeze, Slam,
or Throw his victim in a later Phase, doing so is an
Attack Action (it doesn’t automatically succeed,
requires an Attack Roll, and so forth). Assume any
Grab-and-Throw is a Standing Throw, unless the
Grabber begins a Phase with a Grabbed victim
and the GM lets him move before making the
Throw. If the Attack Roll for a Squeeze or Slam
fails, the victim takes no damage but remains
Grabbed.

After performing a Grab, in that same Segment
a character can only Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
the target as an immediate attack. He can’t use
any other maneuvers or attacks (unless the GM
so permits, and even in that case, using another
attack should mean releasing the Grab in most
circumstances). In later Phases he can use any
attacks he wants (provided he has the free limbs or
other means to do so).

If a Grab-based Maneuver (such as Martial
Grab) provides a STR bonus, that bonus applies
solely for the purposes of holding on to the target.
It doesn’t increase the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing the target, increase the
distance a target can be thrown, or have any
other effect. Similarly, characters can use Combat
Skill Levels to increase their OCV or DCV when
Grabbing, but not the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing.

A character cannot use his Hand-To-Hand
Attack to improve the damage done by Squeezing,
Slamming, or Throwing a Grabbed character. Nor
can characters Haymaker Squeeze, Slam, or Throw
damage. Grab-and-Throw damage doesn’t get a
bonus from the velocity of the Grabbed character
the way a Martial Throw does.
 
-----------------------
Later in the book 6e adds a lot of extra complexity for the specific case of a character throwing another character at a third (or more) character(s), with a special subsystem on 6Ev2 p124 (disconnected from both the rules for Grabs and Throws) that basically ignores the general rules for throwing and asserts a different model entirely.
 
Characters As Weapons
Characters often like to pick up an opponent
and use him as an impromptu club or missile with
which to attack another foe. This has the benefit of
hurting both enemies.

Before a character can use another character
as a club/missile, he must Grab the club/missile. If
the club/missile is conscious (even Stunned), this
requires the normal Attack Roll and imposes the
normal penalties to the character’s OCV and DCV.
If he’s unconscious, the character still has to make
a Grab, but suffers only the standard -1 OCV
and -2 DCV penalties (he doesn’t have the usual
halved DCV in general, and halved OCV against
other targets, if his Grab succeeds).

Once the character has successfully Grabbed
the club/missile, he may use the victim as a club
against any target in HTH Combat range, or as
a missile against any target within range of his
Throw (see Throw, 6E2 80). To do this, he must
make a separate Attack Roll against that target.
Unless the GM rules otherwise, this is a separate
Attack Action, so it cannot be performed in the
same Phase when the character performs his Grab.
The standard CV modifiers for Grab apply, and
the GM may impose other modifiers to reflect
the circumstances. If the attack succeeds, both
the club/missile and the target take the character’s
STR damage. (See 6E2 82 for rules regarding
missed Throws.)

Using another character as a club entails a
weapon Size/Shape penalty of -2 OCV (if the
“club” is unconscious) or -4 OCV (if he’s awake). A
character used as a missile is neither balanced nor
aerodynamic (minimum of -4 OCV). These penalties
are in addition to any the character suffers for
performing a Grab.
-------------------------------
So basically, in the case of throwing a character at another character, 6e wants you to wait until the next phase and make a separate attack roll, and applies a -4 OCV (if the thrown character is conscious) on top of any other penalties, etc. This is, to me, a very inconsistent special casing / blatant nerfing.
 
I really do not like the 6e special casing for this fundamentally true-to-fiction move; having grabbed and thrown people in real life...including into other people...I can tell you that it generally did not require me to latch on, wait 3-4 seconds, and then throw them. Rather, it happens as a single continuous flow of grab, pivot, and release in a direction determined by body mechanics and momentum, and the thrown person collides with whatever happens to be in the space their body is propelled into whether that be one or more objects, or one or more other people, a wall, or the floor. Same thing with a shove or a redirection.
 

I've been working on some house rules, and one in particular has led me down a path, to wonder why we need both a Darkness and a Flash Power.  For starters, both of those Powers have the same base cost for the initial Sense Group (5 for targeting, 3 for nontargeting), and the same additional cost to add one Sense or Sense Group (targeting: +10 per group / +5 per sense; nontargeting +5 per group / +3 per sense).  
 
If you were to take No Area (-1/4) and Usable As Attack on Darkness, you would effectively have something like a Flash that lasts as long as it is maintained for.  In fact, Usable As Attack specifically calls out Darkness as its use case.  
 
So... why not combine them into a single Power?  My tentative name for it is Obscure.  Ranged, Single Target, Constant.  Senses and sense groups are as per the current common cost for Darkness and Flash.   The character can buy up the power level -- duration?  Intensity?  I'm not sure what.  Maybe both?  5 points per +1 to either.  Costs END to maintain; when the user stops spending END (which could be immediately), Obscure stops affecting the target at the end of that Segment, +1 Segment per +1 to power level.  An Obscure bought to 0 END Cost would require some way for the target to stop being affected, as per normal for these kinds of Powers.
 
Flash Defense would be renamed to Sensory Protection, and would protect against Obscure.  If a character has enough Sensory Protection to reduce the Intensity to 0, then instead of being completely blinded (or whatever), they instead take a PER penalty equal to half the Intensity (the penalty reduced by 1 per additional point of SP), and those penalties go away completely when the Obscure drops.  If the target has some Sensory Protection, but not enough to reduce it to 0, then each point reduces the number of Segments they're affected. 
 
Example: a target with 10 points of Sight Group Sensory Protection is hit with an intensity 12 Sight Group Obscure; when the attacker stops maintaining it, they're still blinded for an additional 2 Segments.  Another target with 15 points of Sight Group SP would instead take a (Intensity 12 / 2 = 6; SP 15 - Intensity 12 = 3; 6 - 3 = 3)  -3 penalty to Sight PER while the Obscure is maintained, and none at all when it drops.  
 
Comments?  Thoughts?  

1. the "power" of the player characters is relative to the norms of the setting and opposition...starting with more or less points doesn't really mean anything without anything external to compare it to. In this context, while players may start w/ more points going by the suggested values, so do the opposition. So, in the end, status quo.
 
2. "individual characteristics are often cheaper but without figured characteristics many builds need to spend more points": if you are intent on inflating stats to the absurd levels typical in previous editions published material, sure. But if you take a beat and realize that getting rid of figureds was intended to remove the inflation that was caused by people buying up primary's to take advantage of point recursions, and just buy primary and secondary characteristics to reasonable levels that are appropriate to describe the character I think you'll find that you'll spend about the same or less points on characteristics overall. 
 
3. I haven't found character progression to be slower in 6e, relative to 5e or 4e, to the point that I would consider it a problem. However, I have a bias...relative to other games I find Hero System progression to be slow in general and I prefer this, personally. I don't like games where characters "level up" fast as it destroys the ability to tell a consistent narrative in long play mode which is my preferred approach. Gross power ups...zero to hero...is fine for movies, short novels, board games, etc...but unsatisfying (to me) for more weighty formats. I prefer a more natural feeling character progression where characters get better (and worse) in ways that make sense to the events of the story / the things they've been through. 6e is no better or worse in this regard in my experience than 5e or 4e. 

1. the "power" of the player characters is relative to the norms of the setting and opposition...starting with more or less points doesn't really mean anything without anything external to compare it to. In this context, while players may start w/ more points going by the suggested values, so do the opposition. So, in the end, status quo.
 
2. "individual characteristics are often cheaper but without figured characteristics many builds need to spend more points": if you are intent on inflating stats to the absurd levels typical in previous editions published material, sure. But if you take a beat and realize that getting rid of figureds was intended to remove the inflation that was caused by people buying up primary's to take advantage of point recursions, and just buy primary and secondary characteristics to reasonable levels that are appropriate to describe the character I think you'll find that you'll spend about the same or less points on characteristics overall. 
 
3. I haven't found character progression to be slower in 6e, relative to 5e or 4e, to the point that I would consider it a problem. However, I have a bias...relative to other games I find Hero System progression to be slow in general and I prefer this, personally. I don't like games where characters "level up" fast as it destroys the ability to tell a consistent narrative in long play mode which is my preferred approach. Gross power ups...zero to hero...is fine for movies, short novels, board games, etc...but unsatisfying (to me) for more weighty formats. I prefer a more natural feeling character progression where characters get better (and worse) in ways that make sense to the events of the story / the things they've been through. 6e is no better or worse in this regard in my experience than 5e or 4e. 

I was curious about that too, as I've never seen DEX races, either. Perhaps it's because the GMs I've had tend to take heavy advantage when a character 'drops his pants' (by taking an action on a Phase at his DEX early in the DEX count for the Segment), thereby precluding his/her ability to abort when someone (or several someones) with lower DEX attack in the same Segment … often thumping him/her.
 
Kick a dog enough when it can't abort … and it begins holding Actions until the last possible moments to use them -- i.e. until the Segment just before an upcoming new Phase, usually.  That's been my experience anyway...

I tend to agree with Killer Shrike that if one is going to penalize for hurrying then one should provide a benefit to taking one's time -- otherwise one ends up with a poorly-considered band-aid in play that isn't exactly logical.  Certainly you may not subscribe to the need for symmetry, but that doesn't mean all of your players will see it the same way.
 
I mention this because, ultimately, groups agreeing to play by a certain rule set with a GM isn't a license for a GM to be draconian.  Instead, it is exactly that … an agreement (usually verbal) … that the rule set is mutually acceptable to use as a basis for game play.  Thus, it logically follows that players should also have some input into whether changes/amendments to the rule set are mutually acceptable.  If they aren't, well, the adult thing to do is hash it out (a la negotiatiation) … but if that reaches a stalemate, there are always other GM's (or, from the GM's perspective, other players).

1. the "power" of the player characters is relative to the norms of the setting and opposition...starting with more or less points doesn't really mean anything without anything external to compare it to. In this context, while players may start w/ more points going by the suggested values, so do the opposition. So, in the end, status quo.
 
2. "individual characteristics are often cheaper but without figured characteristics many builds need to spend more points": if you are intent on inflating stats to the absurd levels typical in previous editions published material, sure. But if you take a beat and realize that getting rid of figureds was intended to remove the inflation that was caused by people buying up primary's to take advantage of point recursions, and just buy primary and secondary characteristics to reasonable levels that are appropriate to describe the character I think you'll find that you'll spend about the same or less points on characteristics overall. 
 
3. I haven't found character progression to be slower in 6e, relative to 5e or 4e, to the point that I would consider it a problem. However, I have a bias...relative to other games I find Hero System progression to be slow in general and I prefer this, personally. I don't like games where characters "level up" fast as it destroys the ability to tell a consistent narrative in long play mode which is my preferred approach. Gross power ups...zero to hero...is fine for movies, short novels, board games, etc...but unsatisfying (to me) for more weighty formats. I prefer a more natural feeling character progression where characters get better (and worse) in ways that make sense to the events of the story / the things they've been through. 6e is no better or worse in this regard in my experience than 5e or 4e. 

It is a mechanic that encourages "Alpha Strikes" which are usually unhealthy in the long term. It synergizes with AoE's as they are substantially less impacted by taking a OCV penalty. It adds variance to combat calculus, making it more difficult as the GM to gauge likely outcomes and balance encounters. And so on.
 
But, you know, nothing preventing you from trying it out.

1. the "power" of the player characters is relative to the norms of the setting and opposition...starting with more or less points doesn't really mean anything without anything external to compare it to. In this context, while players may start w/ more points going by the suggested values, so do the opposition. So, in the end, status quo.
 
2. "individual characteristics are often cheaper but without figured characteristics many builds need to spend more points": if you are intent on inflating stats to the absurd levels typical in previous editions published material, sure. But if you take a beat and realize that getting rid of figureds was intended to remove the inflation that was caused by people buying up primary's to take advantage of point recursions, and just buy primary and secondary characteristics to reasonable levels that are appropriate to describe the character I think you'll find that you'll spend about the same or less points on characteristics overall. 
 
3. I haven't found character progression to be slower in 6e, relative to 5e or 4e, to the point that I would consider it a problem. However, I have a bias...relative to other games I find Hero System progression to be slow in general and I prefer this, personally. I don't like games where characters "level up" fast as it destroys the ability to tell a consistent narrative in long play mode which is my preferred approach. Gross power ups...zero to hero...is fine for movies, short novels, board games, etc...but unsatisfying (to me) for more weighty formats. I prefer a more natural feeling character progression where characters get better (and worse) in ways that make sense to the events of the story / the things they've been through. 6e is no better or worse in this regard in my experience than 5e or 4e.