Negative END and charges

[ghost-angel]

The way Steve answered - I was correct, a Haymaker with 50STR costs 6END by the book.

[Ninja-Bear]

And the way Steve answered, I don’t have to eat crow about 0 STR and martial arts.

[Hugh Neilson]

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 12:18 PM, ghost-angel said:

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.)

 

I think it goes back to 1e, and so does ignoring the rule.  Practically, I think few groups charge END for using a maneuver (as opposed to the power with which the maneuver is used), as the shock of many replies to this thread indicates.

 

I missed p 54, which clearly states the maneuver itself costs 1 END, and any END for STR is paid separately.  P 131 implies that only maneuvers with no STR component cost 1 END.

 

I do not see anything in the rules which removes the 1 END maneuver cost if the underlying attack is brought to 0 END.  It's a reasonable change, but I think it is still a change.

 

 I don't see anything in the actual rules which requires STR be used for a maneuver to function (Q2; too bad for an MA who gets Drained to 2 STR - he can no longer Legsweep since he does not have the ability to use at least 3 STR, yet he can use Trip instead, which was specifically added (it was in the SETAC discussions) to have a non-martial "legsweep" to knock a target down.  I guess a racing car, charging rhinoceros, or speeding superhero does no damage on collision with a passerby, since he used no STR in the Move Through.  Clearly, no one will interpret the Move Through that way, but if the rule is "no damage from a maneuver unless at least 3 STR is used", that is the result.

 

Q7 seems like it is mitigated by Q1's exception for 0 END powers.  If we take that one step further, having all STR at 0 END (or maybe all STR and movement, given Dodge relies more on movement than STR, and some SFX of Block would as well) should allow all maneuvers to be used at no END cost.

 

But I agree with GA's premise.  Few, if any, use this rule.  It does not properly mesh with many other aspects of the system.  Its absence has not caused any noted balance problems.  Simply removing the "using a maneuver costs 1 END" rule would solve all of the problems, and we'd lose nothing of real value in the process.

[rravenwood]

On 3/4/2018 at 9:58 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

I think it goes back to 1e, and so does ignoring the rule.

 

My historical interest was piqued enough to go back and check 1e, 2e & 3e, and they appear to all be essentially identical: END is expended when using a Power, STR, or moving; Movement is 1 END per base 5" moved (noncombat doesn't increase END expended); Powers and STR cost 1 END per 5 points of Power/STR used.  Nothing is said about maneuvers costing 1 END regardless of STR used.  Martial Arts are a gray area, since on the one hand it is stated that "All Skills and some Powers do not cost END to use" but it could be understood as the Skill itself - granting access to use the Martial maneuvers - costing no END, while use of the underlying STR used still does.

 

Just in case anyone else was curious... :-)