LoneWolf

If they paid character points for the item, then they get either a replacement, or a point equivalent piece of equipment.

A fighter does not get a 2d6 HKA by buying a skill level.   They get one for purchasing a sword with cash.  Why cannot a wizard buy a wand that gives him a 2d6 RKA for cash?   There is nothing that states magic items have to be rare and expensive.  The monetary cost of a magic item is not something that is set by the rules.  Your problem is being created by your own house rules.  From a game mechanic standpoint, a bow and a wand of magic missiles will cost similar points.   
 
Most FH characters I have seen eventually get magic items.  The most common magic items seem to be weapons and armor.  Logically caster focused items should be more common.  In most campaigns it is spell casters that create items.  Why are they creating so many items for other types of characters instead of for themselves?
 
Also, if casters are creating the magic items why cannot a PC caster create their own magic items?  Doing so might require a skill.  So, if the PC caster buys the equivalent of inventor, they might be able to create their own magic items.  If this is the case the caster is actually has the advantage. 
 

A fighter does not get a 2d6 HKA by buying a skill level.   They get one for purchasing a sword with cash.  Why cannot a wizard buy a wand that gives him a 2d6 RKA for cash?   There is nothing that states magic items have to be rare and expensive.  The monetary cost of a magic item is not something that is set by the rules.  Your problem is being created by your own house rules.  From a game mechanic standpoint, a bow and a wand of magic missiles will cost similar points.   
 
Most FH characters I have seen eventually get magic items.  The most common magic items seem to be weapons and armor.  Logically caster focused items should be more common.  In most campaigns it is spell casters that create items.  Why are they creating so many items for other types of characters instead of for themselves?
 
Also, if casters are creating the magic items why cannot a PC caster create their own magic items?  Doing so might require a skill.  So, if the PC caster buys the equivalent of inventor, they might be able to create their own magic items.  If this is the case the caster is actually has the advantage. 
 

A fighter does not get a 2d6 HKA by buying a skill level.   They get one for purchasing a sword with cash.  Why cannot a wizard buy a wand that gives him a 2d6 RKA for cash?   There is nothing that states magic items have to be rare and expensive.  The monetary cost of a magic item is not something that is set by the rules.  Your problem is being created by your own house rules.  From a game mechanic standpoint, a bow and a wand of magic missiles will cost similar points.   
 
Most FH characters I have seen eventually get magic items.  The most common magic items seem to be weapons and armor.  Logically caster focused items should be more common.  In most campaigns it is spell casters that create items.  Why are they creating so many items for other types of characters instead of for themselves?
 
Also, if casters are creating the magic items why cannot a PC caster create their own magic items?  Doing so might require a skill.  So, if the PC caster buys the equivalent of inventor, they might be able to create their own magic items.  If this is the case the caster is actually has the advantage. 
 

A fighter does not get a 2d6 HKA by buying a skill level.   They get one for purchasing a sword with cash.  Why cannot a wizard buy a wand that gives him a 2d6 RKA for cash?   There is nothing that states magic items have to be rare and expensive.  The monetary cost of a magic item is not something that is set by the rules.  Your problem is being created by your own house rules.  From a game mechanic standpoint, a bow and a wand of magic missiles will cost similar points.   
 
Most FH characters I have seen eventually get magic items.  The most common magic items seem to be weapons and armor.  Logically caster focused items should be more common.  In most campaigns it is spell casters that create items.  Why are they creating so many items for other types of characters instead of for themselves?
 
Also, if casters are creating the magic items why cannot a PC caster create their own magic items?  Doing so might require a skill.  So, if the PC caster buys the equivalent of inventor, they might be able to create their own magic items.  If this is the case the caster is actually has the advantage. 
 

These are all good points, and in general, the points that tend to come most often with this conversation.  The problem is at their core, these points are all based on arguments that are biased toward emulating D and D (either pro or con, but still bases on the idea of D and D, where fighters buy stuff and wizards learn it.
 
Branching out a bit, we find _other_ good points that counter the arguments:
 
 
 
 
That is an _excellent_ point that the D and D model fails to consider:  no reason your sorcerer isn't sporting a STR 23 and a CON 18, and wields a sword like a barbarian.
 
 
 
It's no secret that I hated D and D from the get go, and like it even less now; mostly because I found it's system to be terrible and its assumptions to be assinine.  The Fantasy Trip, though, as many flaws as it had, demonstrated _easily_ that there were other ways to do fantasy.
 
Even Traveller, the science fiction game against which all others are judged, had a more interesting way to handle "magic-like abilities:"  roll some dice; maybe you got something; maybe you didn't.  (A friend once claimed to have run the numbers.  He said it worked out to something like 1 in 1300 player characters, but I never tried to verify that)  in all other ways, you operated like any other character save one or more abilities that could only be had by random chance operating at random levels-
 
What I am saying is this argument-  eh...  More precisely, this topic of discussion exists _only_ because on  some subconscious level, the person asking assumes that all fantasy shares the same horribly-flawed magic v might dichotomy as Dungeons and Dragons, when the reality is that _good_ fantasy won't go anywhere near them.
 
For example, why the assumption that magic is somehow points-expensive?  It can just as easily be a skill roll (manipulate cosmos) or prayer (ransom actions of the GM) of even a two-point perk: "can perform magic" with the wizard buying his spell books or scrolls oe what have you with cash money the same as the the gladiator buys his swords or the healer buys his elixirs.
 
It might even be something else entirely:  perhaps this world has a set of know interactions between various magical elements- or magical reactions between mundane items-  and the magician spends cash for his spell components and makes a knowledge skill check to see what he is able to make from components on hand.
 
 
The only thing the "wizards spend points and everyone else spends cash" mindset does is prove the D and D is so pervasive that it can screw up HERO, too.
 
 
 
 

Different take on the above. If a player pays points, then the item paid in points for, will return to the character. They cannot lose it permenantly. Items paid for in money can be lost, stolen, or damaged,permanently. This was discussed 6-9 months ago already. 

In most cases secondary stats were bought up from the figured values.   I have never had a character with a 20 STR that only had 4 PD.  Even REC had to be bought up.   A character with a 20 STR and 20 Con had 8 REC.  Even at 2 SP a heroic character will use 10 END per turn (4 for STR and at least 1 for movement).  If they have 3 or higher SPD they will burn even more.   If they have a 4 SPD they will burn through their 40 END about 30 seconds.   Going up to 10 REC means you last an extra turn or so.  That is assuming they have nothing else using END. 
 
Figured stats are kind of like minimum wage, they give you something, but not enough to survive.  You still need to buy them up from the starting values, so how is that any quicker or less mental effort?  Too me adding +6 REC takes the same amount of mental effort as adding +2.   
 

True.  But...
 
6e2 has a number of pregen characters in the HERO System Genre By Genre section.  6e1 has multiple sets of Characteristics guidelines by power levels on pages 35 and 48.  And then there's us, here at the boards and on the Discord server. 
 
And there's a ton more information available in the other supporting books. Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Hero for 6th edition alone.  Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete.
 
A person new to 5th edition is going to be in exactly the same place as a person new to 6th edition with respect to expectations of where stats should be.  In this regard, reducing the amount of math by eliminating Figured Characteristics is reducing the mental load.  I can't comprehend how the opposite could be true.

In what way?  It reduces at least a dozen arithmetical operations. 

Be careful when trying to convert from D&D to hero.  It seems like it should work, but for the most part it often ends up being very difficult.  The rules systems just don’t match and often what is a low level power in D&D is extremely expensive in Hero.  Just as often the reverse is also true.  Every time I have seen someone try this it ends up taking more time and effort than it would be to start from the ground up.  
 
Real weapon is not appropriate, it means the weapon can be broken and needs maintenance.    
 

I have been pondering this a while and have come to the conclusion that if you add this into the game, it changes so much about when people take what actions in what order that it creates the need for a long and complex list of rules that have to be added to the way combat works.  I understand that if you do it simply it works well and easily -- Savage Worlds allows this for example, because it is a super, super simple combat system.  But with the flexibility of Hero and the combat maneuvers and the speed chart and DEX rank and all the rest, it becomes much more complex.
 
It starts to become, as I noted above, a system of who goes in what order, and how do you determine who interrupts what action and when do you move and how far, and what facing you have.  Which appeals to me in one sense -- it makes combat more dynamic and allows a lot of interesting things to be added in like bonking someone to stop them from doing something -- but it also would slow down combat massively, add another book of rules, and make things a lot less free wheeling and fun.
 
I played Aces & Eights, an award winning system.  They had some neat ideas like the shot clock and adding poker cards into the game and so on.  They break down combat into 1/10th second intervals in which you basically write down what you intend to do like Magic Realm, and then the clock very slowly unwinds as everyone tries to execute their actions at the same time.  This all sounds brilliant on paper but is  virtually unplayable in actual practice, and took freaking ages for a short gunfight.  The whole timing of events thing is a source of continual fighting, rule changing and frustration in games like Magic: the Gathering.
 
So, basically while it sounds kind of harmless I think it would avoid it.
 
 

Check your math on my way.  The base cost is 28 +14 (Active cost) to go through an additional 7 DEF for a total of 13 DEF.   The cost of the extra DEF is 7 points not 12 (14/2 = 7). That puts it to 35 not 40.  You are paying 1 point per extra DEF you can move through.  Being able to tunnel through more than 6 DEF should cost more than tunneling through 6 DEF.   Your method cost the same as tunneling through 6 DEF.  

I would probably do a partially limited power.  Buy the movement and 6 PD with no limitation and buy extra PD with a custom limitation like Doc is recommending.  I would place the value of the limitation higher if doing this way because it is more restrictive on what it is being applied for.  About a -1 limitation seems right.  The cost work out pretty close either way but this is a more accurate way of doing it.    

10 STR gives you the benefit of a 10 STR.  If you buy your STR down to 0 you lose the benefits of 10 STR, this is the reason you gain points for selling back STR.  What do you lose when you buy your COM to 0 that justifies the 5 points?   What are the effects of having a 0 COM?  Every other primary stat in 6th edition has a major negative when the stat is reduced to 0.  A character with 0 STR is at half DCV and must make a STR roll to make almost any action.  A character with a 0 INT has to make an INT roll to perform any action at all. I don’t see anything similar to those that a 0 COM would cause.   Being hideously ugly is better simulated with a distinctive feature.  

One thing to keep in mind is that even the developers make mistakes at times.  To me this is clearly one of those times. This has apparently been going on for a few editions.     
 
To me the fix is simple.  For hardened defense you halve anything that is not hardened to the appropriate level.  For impenetrable you apply the amount of appropriate impenetrable defense against the minimum damage. 
 
Even though this is not official I suggest that everyone adopt this as a house rule.  I would also suggest that this be officially adopted and added to any upcoming FAQ. 

Role playing to me is taking on the role of the character and playing that.  A huge part of the character is the skills and stats the player purchased when they created the character.   When your character with no social skills and a PRE of 8 tries to make eloquent speeches to get people to agree with him that is not role playing, especially when he rolls an 18 for his persuasion.  
 
I have seen one person do this properly. It was in a Pathfinder game and the player was playing an elf with a low CHA (7 if I remember), and rolls a -1 for his diplomacy check.   The character was an elf who was  somewhat racist and believed that elves were better than other races.  He was in a bar filled with humans trying to diffuse a bad situation.  The player starts calling the humans in the bar something that would probably get me a warning on these boards.  That is role playing.  
 

Increasing the cost of skills which this does is not going to improve the game.  In fact, it is likely to do the opposite.  Too many players don’t even bother with skills even though they are fairly cheap. Making them cost more is just going make players even less willing to purchase skills. 
 
Currently most scientist characters use the option to make their science skills INT based to get decent rolls when they purchase multiple sciences.  Knowledge based characters do the same thing.  By combining this with skill enhancers you can get a decent number of relevant skills for fairly cheap.
 
Under the current rules I can spend 41 points for a 23 INT, and a 14 or less on the following skills computer programing, inventor, security systems, electronic and mechanics, plus the skill enhancer scientist and 5 sciences skills all on 14 or less.  Under the proposed rule you have to spend 48 points to get those skills and that does not include the cost of raising the characters INT.  Once you factor in the INT the cost jumps up to 61 points.  That does not even factor in perception.  This is a very basic scientist build what is the justification for the extra cost?      
 
A Ninja or other martial arts concept is going to get equally hard.  All this system does is to penalize certain concepts.  This is not just a solution in search of a problem.  This is solution that creates a problem.   

I never understood the idea that you had to try and act out social interactions that your character should be able to do, but you cannot.  That is not role playing, that is using your own skills in place of those of your characters.   That is in fact the exact opposite of what good role playing should be.   I am an engineer with decades of experience with computers, but I don’t force my non-technical players to give me detailed descriptions when they try to “hack” into a system.  What I will do is after the roll come up with a reasonable description of how they did it.  
 
Real role playing would be to make the roll and then play out the results.  For example, if the player is good at making speeches and fails his roll by a huge amount, they should start spouting of absolute garbage that is going to totally screw up the situation.  That is role playing, not trying to salvage the situation.   If the player makes the role give some suggestion on how they did it and maybe change their wording to something that actually sounds reasonable.  
 

I never understood the idea that you had to try and act out social interactions that your character should be able to do, but you cannot.  That is not role playing, that is using your own skills in place of those of your characters.   That is in fact the exact opposite of what good role playing should be.   I am an engineer with decades of experience with computers, but I don’t force my non-technical players to give me detailed descriptions when they try to “hack” into a system.  What I will do is after the roll come up with a reasonable description of how they did it.  
 
Real role playing would be to make the roll and then play out the results.  For example, if the player is good at making speeches and fails his roll by a huge amount, they should start spouting of absolute garbage that is going to totally screw up the situation.  That is role playing, not trying to salvage the situation.   If the player makes the role give some suggestion on how they did it and maybe change their wording to something that actually sounds reasonable.  
 

By the same token, when a player who is playing a character with no social/interaction skills and low social characteristics (PRE, COM in some editions) and the player makes eloquent oratories, or charming comments, that does not override the character's lack of social graces.  Expecting player skill to overcome a lack of character skill is bad role playing.

Yeah the thing with role playing and social interaction is that you have to work with the best that person can do.  Don't penalize characters for what their players are incapable of.  This is why I don't like puzzles, riddles, etc in games unless you have players that are great at them or you don't have significant clues and assistance to get them through it.  We're playing a ROLE PLAYING game here, not some test of player abilities.
 
If you have a timid player who is awful at social graces and chatting up a lady, don't use his awkward confused and scared lines against him.  Use the roll and determine if this is a good effort from them as a player.  I am confident everyone here either knows, knew, or is that sort of person and we play these games to be better, stronger, more interesting and active people than we are in real life.

Chakra is not a game term so I am not sure how that would affect anything.  That seems to be something that just be a special effect of how the power is bought without any real consequence.  

Big thing to remember is that even in heroic games, overwhelmingly the characters are at movie style strengths. This means that they will practically always be better than real life in many of their skills and abilities.

When you go against a psychological complication the strength of the complication is used to determine the level of mind control needed.  I would suggest that an enraged or berserk look at the recovery to determine the level of control needed.  The recovery chance is based on how easy it is for the character to overcome his rage.   A recovery of 14 or less might be an EGO +10, an 11 or less an EGO +20 and a 8 or less would be a EGO +30.   Straight EGO I feel is inappropriate because the character does have to excerpt some effort to calm down.