RDU Neil

I would just go with the rule of thumb that any ordinary item that a player sitting at the table would have on them  ie;  a smart phone,  a Leatherman style multi-tool,  a cigarette lighter would be free.  On the other hand something like the aforementioned hand gun. If the player insists that it too should be free, than just make sure that they pay the points for the perk: carry permit/police powers etc.
    Things tend to equal out that way without as many arguments or write up sessions in the middle of a game that kill most of the night.

I can't make a math case for my opinion, but this exact issue came up frequently in my M&M gaming and it's just frustrating.  You shouldn't make characters pay for equipment that is easily available elsewhere.  Cell phones, flash lights, goggles, binoculars, coats for cold weather, regular automobiles, etc. should just be available whenever people want them.  It's just ludicrous to write up a Superman clone and then include an entry on his sheet for his iPhone or a simple communicator.  If you can buy it on Amazon or at a mall, players should have it.
 
Guns and weapons are more on the line, I guess.  But my players used to make fun of me for trying (early on) to enforce the rule that if they picked up a gun from one of Joker's goons during a fight, they'd have to get rid of it by the end of the session.  Why?  What happened? Magic recall?
 
The rest of your points go more to games that involve superheroes more powerful than my preference.  I wouldn't jack up attacks just because guns are easier to use.  In fact, I'm constantly trying to keep guns and normal humans effective in my super games.  I hate the idea of Silver Age power levels and the idea that just because someone can shoot energy out of their fingers, they can fight at the same level as a jet, tank, or APC.
 
Anyway, my opinion didn't help you much.  I'm just backing up the idea that enforcing equipment rules on superheroes drives many players nuts.

So I'm sure this topic will bring lots of opinions and heat. I'm sure the AMTs (angry math types) will show up with their calculations to prove the horribleness of other people's ideas, and that is fine.
 
I'd still like to discuss my sense that "Pay for Everything With Points" is a left-over relic of old-school Champions, and that the "problems" of free equipment are not so much with what is free, but with the lack of value in what you actually pay for.
 
As a caveat, I've long since come to the position that "equipment" (including guns and explosives and cell phones and handcuffs, whatever) is just that, equipment like in any other RPG, and it is available to the PCs if it is situationally, plot-wise and economically appropriate for them to have it... no points necessary. If the Cap clone wants to say he has a .45 on his hip but not pay points for it, no problem. I mean, the tendency is to allow lower point, much more vulnerable "Heroic" characters to use and go up against assault rifles and such, why should it be any more unbalancing to let supers have similar access, especially when those weapons are much less likely to be as dangerous to supers? It really isn't.  (There are issues that arise, but it isn't because the equipment is free... see below.)
 
Another reason I can't justify equipment is the following: Imagine a character had a small, palm size device that contained the vast knowledge of humanity at the touch of a button, could light up a room, capture images, communicate over vast distances and do it all through voice interaction. In the '80s, we'd have called this a "Mother Box" and it would have been nearly magical and probably the majority of a 300 point character's point build. Today, this is a cell phone and every idiot has one. Do you still make someone pay points for their smart phone? I certainly don't. That whole concept right there is one of the biggest barriers to entry for new players. It makes no intuitive sense.
 
So, anecdotally, I've been allowing "free equipment" no matter what kind of HERO game we are playing for some time, and it has 90% of the time worked fine, supers or heroic.*
 
But my anecdotes are not your anecdotes, so let's discuss further
 
So... bear with me... what are the downsides of allowing free equipment for supers, with the same caveats as heroic (it is situationally, plot-wise and economically appropriate for the PC to have it)?  Like I said, the AMTs will have all kinds of numbers and formulas, but I think it comes down to one concept: Equipment (free or not) makes super powers less super, powers less powerful.
 
For example: The classic issue in Fantasy Hero, is that the fighter with a sword is dishing out top notch damage, spending points only on stats. The magic user has to sink a ton of points into a "spell" that essentially does the same damage, but cost a big chunk of the build points that the Fighter can spend on all kinds of other things. There is very little outside of contrived plot scenarios, that the blast spell and the sword aren't really just two different SFX for the ability to deal 2 1/2d6K or whatever. Where is the advantage (mechanically) that should come with investing so many points? That magic user ain't feelin' very magical... and that hurts the game.
 
In a supers game, Zapper pays 30 pts for a 2d6RKA electro blast, while Gunman is wielding a 2d6 AF AR-15 at the same time, for minimal point outlay (Weapon Fam).
 
In many cases, especially with modern military arms... equipment is even MORE powerful than the super-powers capped at an AP level far below that of a decent assault rifle. Essentially, super powers (specifically around damage levels) are stuck in '70s-'80s concepts and not caught up with modern understanding of and access to high-powered weaponry. At the same time, HERO has gone out of its way to attempt to standardize/stat out/document the wide variety of weaponry and attack equipment potentially available. Equipment/weapon damage has leveled up over the years, but super-powers haven't (and in fact, buying powers has become MORE expensive for the same abilities over time).
 
Now... part of this is not just raw damage. It is the fact that the game tries to apply "realistic damage and fire rates" to weapons, but doesn't enforce all the "realistic" downsides. Weapons can get heavy, humans get tired quickly hauling and firing them, ammunition needs to be carried and can run out, weapons fire a lot faster and run out a lot faster without necessarily hitting more than the rules allow. Weapons get hot, dirty, broken, need maintenance, slow you down when turning to fire, cause ear and eye damage to the unprotected user, etc. They cost money and require access, and are uncomfortable to carry around even if you aren't using them.
 
I mean, if I could shoot 2d6RKAs out of my fingers, with no needs for any equipment or ammo, just occasionally stopping for a few quick breaths... that WOULD be incredibly super, and amazing, and in the real world would be of HUGE advantage to people relying on equipment. BUT in a HERO game, all that matters is 2d6RKA... whether it comes from my fingers or a gun. If you spend points for your attack, and I don't, I can spend points to be BETTER with that attack even, making super powers even less super.
 
Now, even with free equipment... movement powers still seem super. Defense powers still seems super (unless you are playing super high level SF and everybody has their own power-armor). Enhanced senses and most importantly, inherent stats still feel super. We might all have AR-15s, but the guy with a 40 STR 25/25PD/ED resistant and a base 8 OCV/8DCV is a GOD with those guns compared to the normals. Even if characters have access to free body armor and such, it is quickly and easily outclassed by paid-for powers.
 
Ultimately, what tends to feel "no longer super" or "no longer powerful enough" are the damage dealing powers. They just don't feel super when the guy with the gun is doing essentially the same damage as blasting guy. There is only SFX as a difference.
 
Essentially, the real world downsides (cost, weight, encumbrance, maintenance, ammunition, slowness to ready, etc.) are not appropriately modeled as the real world upside (high damage and rate of fire, etc.) are. 

So, the question is... how do you make attack powers feel powerful in comparison to baseline equipment damage.
 
1) A supers game can ramp up the AP limits of the supers, so that super powers are better than the baseline. I've done this, and found that yes, 600 point characters with 75AP levels do still feel super, because they ARE more powerful than baseline equipment.
2) Start nerfing equipment and putting all kinds of limitations that more accurately reflect how equipment works (this could get unfun, very quickly)
2) Provide a different level of effectiveness for powers, or those things that are "bought with points" (they at faster, more accurate, unencumbered, etc.) and make those things meaningful where it counts, in combat.
 
Thoughts?
 
* There is a completely valid reason why a Player/PC might want to pay points in the traditional way, not just use free equipment, but that is another discussion and can be addressed later in this thread.

I really run RDU Hero... but the underlying is 6th ED as the baseline, but heavily house ruled (no speed chart, Luck chits, END Metastat, etc.). 6th ED becauxe of non-figured characteristics... and we all have the PDFs. But specifically use 4th Ed Missile Deflection and Danger International Range modifiers, etc. 

Right... Double Fire was what I was thinking about.
 
Sweep was in 4th Ed, and we used that a lot. I never played original Fantasy Hero, but played the ever-living crap out of 4th Ed FH. Probably my third favorite Hero book... 1) Danger International, 2) the BBB, 3) 4th Ed Fantasy Hero.

Well, you have the right approach, you know the ultimate aim is to reduce DCV, that is, as you say, most likely a drain in mechanical terms.
 
You might consider, instead, a bonus to PRE attack.  You need PRE+20 to cause an opponent not to act for a full phase and be reduced to 1/2 DCV.  If you read that instead as causing an opponent to dive a particular way, setting up a follow-up attack, then this fits the bill.  You could make it all or nothing, the opponent either does it or does not, no minor effects.
 
It is apropos as opponents with greater PRE are less affected while those with power defence have no greater ability to avoid the effects (which they would have with a drain).
 
For most base characters, that means a roll of 30 on a PRE attack - needs 9D6 to achieve that on average.  If the character has PRE 15 and can count on the gun (violent action, +1d6) countering context (in combat, -1d6), then you need +6d6 to give you nine dice.  
 
The rules allow for +1d6 for an appropriate interaction skill (+2d6 If roll is made by more than half).  I might as GM allow 5d6, requiring you to make some kind of attack roll to get the extra dice with a chance of a bonus for a good attack roll.  
 
This is feels like a better mechanic than the drain, IMHO anyway.
 
Doc

Free equipment is far more unbalancing in a Fantasy setting than a Modern one. Buying spells and powers while others get weapons for free is a character tax on combat effectiveness and I've seen very few games where  a character can afford to be useless in combat rather than outside of it.

Yeah and now Bob is toting the heavy blaster doing 4D6 RKA that most folk can’t carry.  ?

If and only if you're going out of your way to make him look that way. Otherwise, Bob gets the same gun John gets, and does the same damage at range. John hits more often at range, but Bob does more damage in melee.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary is playing in  a gritty police drama tagline.....
 

I will, now and forever, recommend Danger International as a low-crunch, complete game to introduce new players to Hero.  
 
Modern military, espionage, police, private detectives... you can even go modern horror, cyberpunk, post-apocalyptic, near future science fiction, alien investigation, etc.  

I was with you right up to this point. You are right, if you are talking experienced players and GMs. There are no training wheels though, HERO will allow you to make the most egregious decisions and mistakes. It does not hold your hand and provide a safe path through the wilderness until you know better.
 
For a neophyte, all the complexity is right up in your face from the get go.

Very missed point. That Martial DC adds to all martial maneuvers except Block and Dodge. How much would you pay for an Aid to STR, NND, Flash and KB(for  target falls)?
 
Conversely, that +5 STR is not what it used to be. It no longer gives REC, Stun or Leaping. 
 
 
I agree with you reasoning but not with your limitation values. You are pricing in a vacuum.  Characters who have these constructs are using them as their main powers with no disadvantage to them that is not shared by constructs that lack them.

Martial DC's are also under priced. They should be somewhere between 6 and 8 points.

My opinion on Deadly Blow is that we need a base mechanic for a floating damage class.  This would also help in pricing combat skill levels.  For those who dislike Deadly Blow, is +1 DC for all martial maneuvers, 0 END, reasonably priced at 4 points?  That's another floating DC mechanic.

I pretty much agree with all of these but I make an exception for Deadly Blow.
 
As written, with the official rulings I've seen on how it works, it is the most broken construct in the game IMO. 
 
It is less expensive than the power it supplements, it adds to the base damage of KA but is not subject to all of the relevant advantages. By adding to the base damage, it enables bypassing the doubling rule (if you play with that option) and it is a talent and thus cannot be drained, suppressed, restrained or even detected without making a custom power.
 
If the cost was raised and it was subject to doubling, I would consider it balanced. As it is, it is just the power the mechanic invented by the game designer to make his favorite type of character.

Some questions:
 
Which of these are changes made specifically in 6e?  In other words, which (ir any) edition has the superior mechanics for these items?
 
Are there elements/mechanics within 6e which are superior to prior editions?
 
I know the pricing of combat skill levels was based on replicating a Multipower of all the options for skill levels.  As we go higher up the chain, and have to cover mental and physical CVs, that pushed the price up.  I'm  not sure that was the right model, but I will say that, in my opinion, if the cost to get the same in-game benefit through two different mechanics or builds varies, that is an indication of a failure in the mechanics.
 
In my view, the biggest mechanical failure in 6e is that the price of several characteristics (INT, PRE, maybe DEX and EGO) remains too low compared to the price of purchasing the component parts (skill levels and enhanced PER; skill levels, PRE attacks and perhaps PRE defense; skill levels and lighting reflexes).  However, those mechanical failings are largely unchanged from prior editions (DEX being the exception, where it is now not the biggest bargain in the game, and a required purchase to be combat-effective on a point-efficient basis).

I think continuity was the key.  For that long running, map based, political,
Fantasy Hero campaign , I started with the maps, then the coutri s and some vague history. One area was dialed in sharply as The starting are for the campaign. I’d it wasn’t for my compulsions and obsessions, I would be too lazy to GM. The first  compulsion was another GM wouldnpass out these digest sized, yellow, notepads for his players to do his version of blue booking. I would grab a couple of these and doodle faves and head shots. Men, women, young, old, various limited ethnicities seen in the campaign area. I would sketch them out and then throw some ink on them, so I could scan them in and remove the lines , but later.   When, during the course of a game, I wouldflipp through the notepads, find a face that fit, then pancil the name under the face and pass it to the players. This gave them a face and a name, and established another piece of the continuity.  The other compulsion was maps and world building, but unlike others who didrivernby river derail, I started with a map, Logical placement of cities and towns, and a fairly tightly worked out list of deities. I allowed the players to treat the world like a sandbox.. me, furiously scribbling few steps ahead of them. But it worked, because I myself was wondering what would happen next. To keep things fresh for me as the GM I would devise System’s, such as that Parlimentary resolution system above to generate a voting record, a list of NPCs, and why such and such district was important., because, I learned if you gave the players a gold plated path in one direction they will pick the other one. I was more carrot than stick sort of GM. But the players remembered names, favors, contacts, and used them. To great success.   So much so, that one off the monarchs offered the party to lead an expedition to the unknown desert east on a mission of survey and exploration.  But it was taking by taking copious  notes, and setting up semi autonomous systems, compulsively doodling faces, and writing down a few ideas while daydreaming about the campaign at work, thaat kept the prep time to around a half hour or so. This seems like a lot of work but remember, I am a lazy GM.  Where I skipped thee work is that I cannot do HERO math well, so I cribbed stuff from published material, whining to other GM friends to make sure my packages and custom monsters balanced out, and offloaded magic spell creation to the players within strict cultural, and power guidelines. The games themselves were mostly simulationist- narrative-travelogue. I really am mathtarded. But the games were fun and it lasted a long time. One really can’t havenpolitics without history, consistency, and and the ability to plan for the future. 

Yes... correct... Champions and Hero are still synonymous in my brain, if wrongly. Champions was what was first created... Fantasy Hero, DI, Justice Inc. were all permutations on that original rule set... and only THEN did they try to systematize the whole thing. The entire concept of the Speed Chart as a simulation of a multi-panel comic page shows that the mechanics were, first and foremost, designed to simulate comic book combats. The fact that the overall combat task resolution system was applicable to nearly all action adventure combat was an evolution.
 
(And, to this day, the vestiges of defined combat actions much better fit a simlulation of comic superhero fights than military gunfights or close quarters weapon combat, etc. You need a lot more additional detail and maneuvers and modifiers to get granular, which was not the original intent of the rules.)  

Totally agree with this as stated... but I believe certain mechanics (and maybe they are meta-mechanics, I think most Nar mechanics are meta-mechanics) help guide and facilitate that social contract and those considerations. Any mechanic used badly can come across as clunky and break verisimilitude/immersion to the extent that things become "un-fun". They can also help people who don't grok Nar thematic storyellling or really the social contract in general, in how to interact appropriately.
 
I've seen Gamists who "get it" when you give them a mechanic to master. They realize what "winning" means in the game now. They get their reward for being good at the game in a different way than, say, D&D, but they get it. Simulationists start to see how they can use the Nar mechanic to shape the events/story/world the way "it ought to be" to appropriately simulate the genre/feel/expectation of the game.
 
It's not perfect. Sometimes it doesn't work. Same could be said for all games.
 
Hero, from its inception, was a simulationist based game... designed to simulate Bronze-age, Marvel-esque style superhero adventures. To get back to your original post/purpose, the reason I'd argue 4th Ed was better than 6th mechanically, is that it was the perfect blend of the original simulationist creation, and the generalized "universal action adventure" build system. 

Perhaps this, more than anything, is the crux of our congenial disagreement:  what we as play groups want out of our games. 
 
Much as Scott and his group are not heavy into the theatrics side, my own groups are more interested in exploring the impact they can make on their world via the choices they make and the actions they follow.  This is completely at odds with the idea of inverting the game to see the world make changes in them. 
 
How about that: you got me to see it as plausible.  It's still something I have no use for at all, but I can accept that someone does. 

I think the difference you are talking about here in comparing combat and social interaction is that when the PCs engage in combat you and the players are content that the characters are risking negative consequences from their actions and you have system that aids you in defining whether consequences are positive or negative and the relative extent.  In social interactions you are not really content that the characters are risking negative consequences from their actions and content to work without any framework to define the relative extent of those consequences.
 
Adventurers can go carve out a kingdom but may die in the process.  Politicians can go change the policy of the kingdom but do not risk becoming part of the current regime in the process.
 
Why is it OK for the characters to be changed physically but suffer no risk of being changed socially.
 
In Pendragon and the new runequest, the characters can pick up passions and hatreds and loves that can influence their actions later in the campaign, they can work to remove those or change those (as part of their growth and change) but while the players set the initial conditions and know where they want to be, they do not get carte blanche to decide that.  The player may want to be the most persuasive politician of his current generation, unswervingly brave and decisive in his policy but he can no more guarantee such things as he can guarantee that he is the most dashing swordsman of his current generation, never blooded in a duel.
 
It is, however, all about the kind of game we want to play.  It is all about us having fun.  If my players wanted all their combats to be decided on a coin toss on whether they win with consequences or just win, I would play that game.  There is nothing to be gained by trying to tell folk that their game is BadWrongFun and I am in no way suggesting anyone needs to play my way to be correct.  I just think that some of this has the potential for adding a different dimension to a game, especially one set in and around a city.
 
Doc

In a normal game, the challenges and dangers involve Rayzer Blade stabbing you with a laser gun, getting punched by Obligatory Cold Pun's massive ice-clad fists, or having your secrets stolen by Suckerberg's mind-sharing powers. 
FRED quite wisely proscribes using social skills on PCs for the reasons you mentioned. 
 
But to me, "political/intrigue game" suggests that the challenges and dangers should involve cunning courtesans wooing you so they can manipulate you into acting on their behalf (or so they can stab you when you're unarmored), courtly rivals flinging veiled insults to goad you into brash and reckless actions (possibly ones that end in their bodyguards punching you), or a masterful statesman leading you into a trap of words that leads to you accidentally admitting something unpleasant (like your secrets). 
Put more generally, I would take "political/intrigue game" to mean one where the proscriptions are, by necessity, lifted.  You could, I admit, run a game where the PCs are always "on the attack" in social scenes and everything boils down to them initiating the die-rolls and them being cunning and clever and manipulative.  But that seems to me like it'd gut the ability of NPCs to be cunning and clever and manipulative and place the PCs in this bizarre state where only certain highly specific lines of social attack as determined by their disads are possible. 
 
Overall, to me, "political/intrigue game" requires players to opt into the idea of having less agency.  Communicating that fact to prospective players would be critical. 

This is what I'm alluding to above, that it felt like a move too far to the "over-engineering of characters builds" side of thing, while ignoring "actual play" and the results of using the rules in play.

I've said before that Hero became "two games"... the "build your character game" and the "actual play at the table" game. The mechanics, even all the massive supplements, became stylistically and functionally removed from implementing actual play. A tendency to deconstruct everything to the Nth degree, without a focus on whether you SHOULD bother deconstructing, and does it actually help you play the game better with actual people and dice rolling and plots and dialogue going on, etc.
 

Since I'm the one who said that, I'll chime in...
 
It is very possible to have a game using Hero that has a lot of intrigue and politics in it, but IMO that is more the genre/trappings of an otherwise action adventure game, not the "point of the game."  For example, I've been running a Heroic level game called Secret Worlds off and on for years now. The characters are "specials" in that they have a level of skill and ability above average to normals, but no real "powers." They specials are involved in conspiracies and back alley battles between secret organizations vying for power. It is very much steeped in the real world politics and events. (Think Mr. Robot, X-Files and Jason Bourne combined).
 
While building alliances and figuring out the plots and agendas of the competing groups... determining who is the enemy is, etc., ... are all part of the plot, the mechanics around these are tangential. They involve the same basic "make some skill rolls to find out information" that any other game would. Having Perks and Contacts and Resources are all important, but they don't decide the game mechanically. There is no "Perk vs. Perk" resolution system... is my investigation better than your dark conspiracy?... type of mechanical resolution. They are background, color, and occasionally important for a turn in the narrative...
 
... but mechanically, the game is Hero-style action adventures. Gunfights and martial arts battles. Knives in the dark, and car chases, etc. (talk about something else Hero doesn't do well.. vehicle combat... we abstract that a great deal.)
 
To me... a game that is "about" Politics is a game that mechanically supports the characters taking political actions... assembling coalitions, persuading and influencing others, etc. And not just a basic "Roll Persuasion" and then have to just "make up" what that roll means. It would have defined, mechanical impact on the opposing character... they could deflect the argument, verbally riposte... there would be back and forth just like a martial arts fight in Hero, punching and blocking and dodging, but in a verbal/social way... and there would be just as many variants and complex mechanics for resolving these political and social conflicts as there are in Hero for resolving physical and mental combat. (It might be possible to bastardize the mental powers and combat maneuvers to reflect this, but again, it is bending Hero out of shape to do something it wasn't intended to do.)
 
Think of it this way... in Hero you often have hundreds of points in combat skills, abilities and powers, and a few skills that are social. A truly Political or Social game would be the opposite... the majority of a character focused on many and varied nuances of political skills, abilities and powers... and a few skills like "Fight 13-" to resolve the background moments of combat.