Negative END and charges

[Hyper-Man]

I wonder if we should ask the members who know how to update the most commonly used Hero Designer exports with END costs for regular combat maneuvers?

[Hugh Neilson]

On 2/21/2018 at 7:07 PM, Greywind said:

Why would Martial Dodge be excluded from the 1 min END cost when Dodge itself isn't?

 

On 2/22/2018 at 4:07 PM, dsatow said:

Personally, I think this should be a GM call for their campaign and that there is no right or wrong answer here.

 

All rules are GM call.  If the GM wishes to charge no END for non-martial maneuvers that use no STR, or charge END for a martial maneuver that uses no STR, that's his call.  Under the RAW, the use of a non-martial maneuver costs the END cost of the attack/STR used, or a minimum of 1 END, while a martial maneuver costs the END cost of the attack/STR used, with no minimum END cost.

 

On 2/22/2018 at 10:37 PM, Surrealone said:

Martial Dodge doesn't cost any END, doesn't need any STR use, therefore, doesn't need that advantage on the STR.  So, no, you don't need that advantage.

 

Likewise, if you want to do a Martial Strike ... and you don't add any STR to it, you're going to do 2d6 of damage ... then, per RAW you will pay no END for that 2d6 of output (it since it's a Martial Maneuver) ... and you don't need that advantage to achieve this.

 

On 2/22/2018 at 10:44 PM, Greywind said:

The increase in effect from basic to Martial is enough to justify the expense.

 

And according to other arguments, your example is wrong based simply on the effect that you've just done a STRIKE maneuver mandating END expenditure.

 

A Martial Strike is not a Strike.  They are two separate maneuvers.  The martial maneuver follows different rules than the non-martial maneuver, including having no minimum END cost.

 

The lack of a minimum 1 END cost has no stated rationale.  One can assume it is because martial artists are more efficient in their movements.  

 

On 2/23/2018 at 5:52 AM, Greywind said:

So, don't bother paying for Reduced END. Just slap Martial on the power.

 

"Hey, guys, I've got a 100d6 Martial Blast. Doesn't cost me a thing."

 

No, you have a 98d6 Blast that costs END as normal, with which you use a Martial Strike maneuver which adds 2d6 damage.  If you want to fire a Martial Blast with no base damage, and just do the +2d6 maneuver bonus, that would cost no END.  [Examples assume no additional martial arts DCs.  Those could also be used at no END cost.]

 

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Hugh I believe that martial strikes like HA must use a minimum of 1/2 STR.  ( I claim though I could be wrong and I don’t have 6th)

 

Cite (for either)?  I don't recall any attack that cannot be reduced at the user's discretion.

 

Unless this is a reference to the "adding damage" rules - that would suggest that I cannot add more martial arts DCs than my base attack.

 

1 hour ago, ghost-angel said:

Here's how the rules read out:

 

I use the Block Maneuver: 1 END

I use my Martial Block Maneuver: 0 END

 

I use a Haymaker Maneuver with my 50 STR: 6 END

I use a Martial Strike Maneuver with my 50 STR: 5 END

 

Though I honestly doubt most groups ever play it out this way, and don't count the 1 END from Block, and have the 50 STR Haymaker cost 5 END. But that's how the rules actually read.

 

I use the Block Maneuver: 1 END

I use my Martial Block Maneuver: 0 END

AGREE

 

I use a Haymaker Maneuver with my 50 STR: 6 END

DISAGREE - you pay 5 END.  There is no "1 END for a maneuver" rule - it's a minimum of 1 END.  However, if your STR were 0 END, I guess the Strike or Haymaker would still cost 1 END.

 

I use a Martial Strike Maneuver with my 50 STR: 5 END

AGREE

 

I don't see the minimum 1 END cost enforced in play either, but that is a deviation from the rules as written, so we agree there as well.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh considering how in UMA 4th and 5th Steve Long explains how you can build Standard maneuvers using the custom maneuver guidelines (they should be 0 to 1 pt). And reading how Aaron Allston in either the original Ninja Hero or its errata explains how he came up with the cost structure for martial maneuvers. I’d say that you claiming that standard and martial maneuvers are somehow very different creatures (besides of course martial are paid and have better stats for the price) is not a sound conclusion.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh as for 1/2 STR min with HA. In Fred pg. 184 under paragraph titled Using Hand to Hand Attack.

[Ninja-Bear]

Also Hugh I checked out martial maneuvers in Fred. I find it very interesting that in Fred pg 383 under Combat maneuvers that Steve Long states that there are 3 types of combat maneuvers: Standard, optional & martial. Standard, everyone gets free and available to everyone. Optional are free but only in use by genre/GM permission. Martial  maneuvers of course cost points.

[Ninja-Bear]

And now I’ll eat some crow that under negative strength Fred pg 36 he states that at 0 or less strength you do no damage unless you have a weapon or a martial maneuver that adds STR damage.

 

And yes under martial arts I saw where it’s explicit that martial maneuvers cost no Endurance. Pg 64. They really are worth their points.

[ghost-angel]

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

I use a Haymaker Maneuver with my 50 STR: 6 END

DISAGREE - you pay 5 END.  There is no "1 END for a maneuver" rule - it's a minimum of 1 END.  However, if your STR were 0 END, I guess the Strike or Haymaker would still cost 1 END.

 

Well, the rules don't mention a "Minimum Endurance" anywhere, just that Maneuvers that don't use STR cost 1 END. So I would say the interpretation is if the Maneuver uses STR, but you've bought 0END for your STR then the cost is still 0 END. But the Block will still cost 1 END as it's not a STR Based Maneuver.

[Lucius]

 

So if I design a robot with all abilities at zero END or on charges, give it Takes no Stun, and buy END down to zero because I don't expect it to be used.....

 

but the robot is incapable of blocking or dodging for some reason.

 

I can't deny that this seems to be Rules as Written, but I can say that it just doesn't seem right.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says such a robot could last forever, as it has no END

[Surrealone]

10 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

So if I design a robot with all abilities at zero END or on charges, give it Takes no Stun, and buy END down to zero because I don't expect it to be used.....

 

but the robot is incapable of blocking or dodging for some reason.

 

I can't deny that this seems to be Rules as Written, but I can say that it just doesn't seem right.

Actually, I believe that the robot would be able to block/dodge ... and that it would cost 1 END for either maneuver ... which would result in the robot spending STUN ... but because it paid for Takes No Stun (and completely lacks a STUN characteristic), the maneuver would effectively cost no END and no STUN.

 

That's how I would adjudicate it, anyway...

[Steve]

A robot not blocking or dodging seems like it could also be a normal thing for being a robot.

[Surrealone]

There's that, but I think that's the result of a Complication, not something mechanically driven by a charge-based build that Takes No Stun.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, ghost-angel said:

 

Well, the rules don't mention a "Minimum Endurance" anywhere, just that Maneuvers that don't use STR cost 1 END. So I would say the interpretation is if the Maneuver uses STR, but you've bought 0END for your STR then the cost is still 0 END. But the Block will still cost 1 END as it's not a STR Based Maneuver.

 

Looking at p 131 again, it refers to Maneuvers and Actions that have no listed STR value having no END cost.  That would seem to indicate a Strike made with a 0 END attack would cost no END.  The "firing a weapon" statement is then a strange inclusion.  Should it mean only a weapon not purchased with character points? 

 

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

Actually, I believe that the robot would be able to block/dodge ... and that it would cost 1 END for either maneuver ... which would result in the robot spending STUN ... but because it paid for Takes No Stun (and completely lacks a STUN characteristic), the maneuver would effectively cost no END and no STUN.

 

That's how I would adjudicate it, anyway...

 

This is another good question - technically, again from 6E V2 p 131, END cannot be spent  below 0, they can only spend STUN.  As the automaton has no STUN, it seems logical it cannot spend STUN.  Maybe it was not such a terrific idea to sell all of the Robot's END back.

 

If I adopt your interpretation consistently, doesn't that mean an automaton who Takes no STUN can sell back all of its END and not bother with 0 END or charges?  It can just burn its nonexistent STUN to power all of its abilities.  With that clearly not the right answer, I think the automaton must have enough END to power any END-using activity it wishes to use, so if it has no END, it cannot Block or Dodge. 

 

Now, we could simulate Dodge if we buy the automaton +3 DCV which requires its entire phase to use.  Block is not so easy to simulate.

 

Another reasonable question might be the cost of making one or  more maneuvers cost 0 END.  Practically, charging 1 point per maneuver does not seem unreasonable - "0 END" is a +1/2 advantage, and normal maneuvers should not be too expensive.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Lucius said:

 

So if I design a robot with all abilities at zero END or on charges, give it Takes no Stun, and buy END down to zero because I don't expect it to be used.....

 

but the robot is incapable of blocking or dodging for some reason.

 

I can't deny that this seems to be Rules as Written, but I can say that it just doesn't seem right.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says such a robot could last forever, as it has no END

Could it be that when the rule for minimum END was created, that the creator couldn’t imagine such as a scenerio as you described being taken place? 

[Hyper-Man]

Points are for players, not npcs, silly robot.

 

I'm only half kidding...

[Ninja-Bear]

Btw I’m not saying that Lucius  is intentionally trying to game the system just pointing out a flaw in the rules. I don’t wonder why the rules have gotten so inflated and precise. 

[Grailknight]

Or you build all robots as ninjas. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Robot ninjas!!!!

[ghost-angel]

Obviously, even with attempts to clarify, and the fact that rules are just really poorly written - the whole thing has convoluted itself in its own attempts to prevent... something, "gaming the system" perhaps, or just trying to prevent a situation where 'firing a weapon' has to cost something... for Reasons™

 

At this point, it'd just be best to tear the whole section out and rewrite it. "Powers cost 1 END per 10 AP." (include the Heroic 1END/5STR here if this inconsistent legacy is even needed); If really needed "Making an Attack Action costs 1END minimum, unless the players have purchased Costs No END on their STR/Powers."

 

But honestly, I see no reason why this section should be so complicated that half a dozen of us have a multitude of interpretations and have come up with multiple situations that they can't even consistently apply themselves to. (And this isn't even just a 5E/6E 'bloat' thing, going at least back to 4E the END rules have been overly complex for no good reason.)

[Ninja-Bear]

GA to me it sounds like 1 END minimum should be more of a genre thing. In a Pulp game I see no reason why even a Martial Artists couldn’t pay END for even their martial maneuvers. Now for a martial arts game? No END even for Standard maneuvers.

[Surrealone]

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If I adopt your interpretation consistently, doesn't that mean an automaton who Takes no STUN can sell back all of its END and not bother with 0 END or charges?  It can just burn its nonexistent STUN to power all of its abilities.  With that clearly not the right answer, I think the automaton must have enough END to power any END-using activity it wishes to use, so if it has no END, it cannot Block or Dodge. 

The original hypothetical was for an automaton that had Takes No Stun, and everything either @0END or on Charges.  With that in mind, your so-called consistent interpretation did away with the use of @0END and/oor Charges -- which made it inconsistent with the original hypothetical.  Presumably that was done in an attempt to game the ruling, and as the GM, I would not permit that, as I see the use of @0END and/or Charges as the compensating control(s) for the lack of END (or need for it) on the robot.

Also, when I made the ruling, my thinking was as follows:
A robot that has paid dearly for Takes No Stun ... must also pay 3x base cost for each of its defenses (because it has Takes No Stun).  This total spend is well more than many martial artists spend on Martial Maneuvers ... so I adjudicated in a way that nodded in the same direction (i.e. 0END cost for the use of the Block, Dodge, Strike, etc. maneuvers on a robot that has Takes No Stun) -- knowing that the robot still didn't gain the benefit of the improved benefits of Martial Maneuvers through my ruling.  Golly, why yes, I did, indeed, just give away 1 END per basic maneuver to a robot that paid either 45 or 60 CP for Takes No Stun.  That's not exactly an earth-shattering (or even game-altering) give-away, especially when you consider that most martial artists don't spend 45 points on their Martial Maneuvers.  (I'm not including HA's, Skill Levels, or anything that might be tacked onto the Martial Maneuvers in that, by the way.)

[dsatow]

So I posted the question to Steve Long's Rule Question board.  I tried to sum up all the question and scenarios here or that I could think of.

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/96705-minimum-end-cost-per-phase/

 

I don't know if this helps, but its how he interprets his RaW.  What I found interesting was his answer to #3, as I always paid end for my blocks.  Anyways, enjoy.

[Surrealone]

2 hours ago, dsatow said:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/96705-minimum-end-cost-per-phase/

 

I don't know if this helps, but its how he interprets his RaW.  What I found interesting was his answer to #3, as I always paid end for my blocks.  Anyways, enjoy.

That response to #3 is very interesting -- because it's not what the actual RAW verbiage (as quoted earlier in this thread ... for both 5e and 6e) indicates.

 

 

[Hyper-Man]

Are we all sure that we understood his response the same way?

 

I read it as agreement with everyone on Q3 that the maneuvers cost 1 end if not martial or str based like block and dodge.

[Surrealone]

27 minutes ago, Hyper-Man said:

Are we all sure that we understood his response the same way?

 

I read it as agreement with everyone on Q3 that the maneuvers cost 1 end if not martial or str based like block and dodge.

You raise a good point.  I say this because I think I stopped reading after the word 'END' in the following ... and I shouldn't have.

 

Here is the relevant portion of the actual text: "Since Block-based Maneuvers don’t require any use of STR, neither Block nor Martial Block require spending any END for STR. "

 

Re-reading it to the end, I stand corrected and, thus, agree with you, HM ... that it does confirm what's been said here.

 

[dsatow]

23 minutes ago, Hyper-Man said:

Are we all sure that we understood his response the same way?

 

I read it as agreement with everyone on Q3 that the maneuvers cost 1 end if not martial or str based like block and dodge.

 

My take is that maneuvers do cost 1 end, but if the GM chooses to ignore the cost that's ok and is widely accepted.  In the end, RaW yes it costs end.  Not charging End as a GM, is fine too.