Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

[zornwil]

I don't know about this but...

 

...a common theme of criticism I hear a lot is related to Advantage abuse and various over-effectivenesses in powers, that sort of thing.

 

I wonder how true this was IN COMPARISON to now? And I wonder if END pricing is related? END used to be a more valuable commodity. It was far harder to get to 0 END, because of a funky construction wherein, basically, you paid 1/4 of the price of the AP for each halving of END. So 1/2 END = 1/4 times the AP. To get to 1/4 END, one paid that 1/4 amount AGAIN. Each halving of END rounds in the player's favor, so when the PC got to 1 END for the power, he only had to pay the amount of 1/4 of the power one last time as half of 1 was 0 by the system. And END was 1 per 5 AP then, too!

 

Now "inflated" END forces characters to be more restrained with points - including STR by the way. They have to sink points into END and/or this halving process. It's costly, but it balances things, I think, as this also impacts how often you attack/move (i.e. SPD, basically).

 

ALSO, back then, some Advantages did NOT cost END! So you could basically penalize more aggressive or just slightly for their power advantageous powers a bit more.

 

I think this reveals a better balance, at least for superheroes (I can't think enough on the heroic level right now), then we have. You could scale it up or down. I don't think it even has to be a fixed value, but rather you could suggest the player use x1/4 per level for one style, of play, cap the number of times to pay that 1/4 at the 2nd or 3rd or whatever level to get to 0 END, change to 1/8 END or whatever to produce a different balance. END might be cheap, but burning through it means you need REC - there's real points here. For that matter, you can just leave the +1/4 and +1/2 current options.

 

Maybe this is all wet, but I don't think so.

[Gary]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

End was such a pain in the neck back then! I never want to go back again.

 

Although there were a couple of very nice abuses with 2nd Edition End Battery...

[zornwil]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

End was such a pain in the neck back then! I never want to go back again.

 

Although there were a couple of very nice abuses with 2nd Edition End Battery...

Well, I noted elsewhere I'm not a fan of END battery.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

End was such a pain in the neck back then! I never want to go back again.

 

Although there were a couple of very nice abuses with 2nd Edition End Battery...

 

Exactly!

You might be able to address some balance issues but in the process you would be bringing back some of the most complicated math issues that used to exist in HERO (the other was non-combat flight movement which made it absolutely necessary for creating Flash-like 'Running' Speedsters to have Flight, Only On Surface in a movement multipower.)

 

HM

[zornwil]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

Like I said, you can take the basic construct and simplify it. I think you're dismissing it way too easily. You're not even discussing seriously if it would be balanced, you're just poo-pooing it like the "fear of math" crowd does HERO in general.

 

Now I'm going to go pout...

 

Just kidding, I just realized that response sounded poutty as I was finishing it - FYI, I'm not at all, I just think you are dismissing it rather lightly.

[OddHat]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

I like the new END rules. The old rules did have more "grit" to them, but the new version is simpler to track, and results in fewer points sunk into 0 End Cost and more into CON (at least in my campaigns), which I see as a good thing.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

Like I said, you can take the basic construct and simplify it. I think you're dismissing it way too easily. You're not even discussing seriously if it would be balanced, you're just poo-pooing it like the "fear of math" crowd does HERO in general.

 

Now I'm going to go pout...

 

Just kidding, I just realized that response sounded poutty as I was finishing it - FYI, I'm not at all, I just think you are dismissing it rather lightly.

Ouch.

Ok, on a more serious note. Just returning back to a 1End/5Active model for Supers would tip the balance back in favor of characters with high defenses that don't cost End. It would require rethinking the existing norm of starting characters at 350 points too.

 

HM

[zornwil]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

Ouch.

Ok, on a more serious note. Just returning back to a 1End/5Active model for Supers would tip the balance back in favor of characters with high defenses that don't cost End. It would require rethinking the existing norm of starting characters at 350 points too.

 

HM

Really, I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything, I'm sorry if I was, I just felt it was being taken at a too-face value. Even to Oddhat's post, I have to say, I'm sorry that I even expressed it the way I did to start with - I think the true central contention is that perhaps END should play a much greater role.

 

Let me add another side effect - if you don't want to bow, then, to having to put too much into END, you'll also have to take RECs more often. Another thing I hear people frustrated about is the heroes who don't pause during combat and all that.

 

To your specific point, totally true, I completely agree. I think the balance tipping as you stated isn't necessarily bad.

 

I will say, though, that I really didn't have this much of a concern back then and I don't have so much of a concern now. And I personally didn't run it the way the book said, as I ran at 1/5 BASE points, so I actually DEVALUED END. And I would again. But I kept it that way for a long time, only a few months ago did I go to 1/10 AP.

 

Although I don't have the concerns many do, I also think (personally) it MIGHT be easier for people to scale up from a basic numbers, with instructions how to do so, then to have the base set as "easy" as it is now for END usage. I think this might restore balance for those who have issues, while those of us who don't MIGHT (?) adjust more easily to this than they do to the way it is now.

 

That's my train of thought, btw, is it better for "more" people in its ramifications - valuing END upward significantly, I mean, not specifically 2nd edition rules.

[OddHat]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

Really, I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything, I'm sorry if I was, I just felt it was being taken at a too-face value. Even to Oddhat's post, I have to say, I'm sorry that I even expressed it the way I did to start with - I think the true central contention is that perhaps END should play a much greater role.

 

Let me add another side effect - if you don't want to bow, then, to having to put too much into END, you'll also have to take RECs more often. Another thing I hear people frustrated about is the heroes who don't pause during combat and all that.

 

To your specific point, totally true, I completely agree. I think the balance tipping as you stated isn't necessarily bad.

 

I will say, though, that I really didn't have this much of a concern back then and I don't have so much of a concern now. And I personally didn't run it the way the book said, as I ran at 1/5 BASE points, so I actually DEVALUED END. And I would again. But I kept it that way for a long time, only a few months ago did I go to 1/10 AP.

 

Although I don't have the concerns many do, I also think (personally) it MIGHT be easier for people to scale up from a basic numbers, with instructions how to do so, then to have the base set as "easy" as it is now for END usage. I think this might restore balance for those who have issues, while those of us who don't MIGHT (?) adjust more easily to this than they do to the way it is now.

 

That's my train of thought, btw, is it better for "more" people in its ramifications - valuing END upward significantly, I mean, not specifically 2nd edition rules.

 

No disrespect intended, just expressing a preference.

 

I can see taking your approach as well. In a campaigns where I wanted heroes to have to put more of an effort into using powers, and where I didn't want a hard active point cap, I could certainly imagine going to 1 END per 5 points again, and doubling the value of Reduced END cost. That could work very well for a Sci-Fi Psionics world, where very weak powers are the norm, but where a few Psis can pull off world-shaking stunts at the cost of exhausting themselves or worse. You could do that under the current rules as well, but then there are usually more ways to do the same thing.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

No offense taken.

 

(Doing my best Gary impersonation)

Charging End at 1/5 base points would make broken constructs like RKA 1d6 Autofire Penetrating NND be just that much more efficent since it now "only" costs 15 (and that's only due to the Autofire!) for a relatively average active point cost of 60 (I think, no books handy to reference at the moment).

 

HM

[zornwil]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

No offense taken.

 

(Doing my best Gary impersonation)

Charging End at 1/5 base points would make broken constructs like RKA 1d6 Autofire Penetrating NND be just that much more efficent since it now "only" costs 15 (and that's only due to the Autofire!) for a relatively average active point cost of 60 (I think, no books handy to reference at the moment).

 

HM

Oh, yeah, truly, I don't recommend it for everybody. I ran it for years though and it worked out fine. And I did it in stages - when 4th was out and while I was running my game in South Carolina I did it with the +1/4 in points per +1/2 reduction. Then, for a few years up here, until recently, I ran it as 1/5 END but allowed +1/4 for Half and +1/2 for 0 END to allow for more non-END. Finally, partly because I just wanted to not deal with customizing outputs for HD and more importantly because I realized it seemed okay, I finally went to HERO's standard 1/10 END.

 

Personally, btw, as a GM, I tend to poo-poo and try to get people not to take AUtofire. It's just a personal preference.

[zornwil]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

No disrespect intended, just expressing a preference.

 

I can see taking your approach as well. In a campaigns where I wanted heroes to have to put more of an effort into using powers, and where I didn't want a hard active point cap, I could certainly imagine going to 1 END per 5 points again, and doubling the value of Reduced END cost. That could work very well for a Sci-Fi Psionics world, where very weak powers are the norm, but where a few Psis can pull off world-shaking stunts at the cost of exhausting themselves or worse. You could do that under the current rules as well, but then there are usually more ways to do the same thing.

Oh, no, I didn't take it as disrespect, but thanks, no worries. I didn't mean to imply that, either.

[Lamrok]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

1 end per 5 points made for a lot more constructs built around charges. High strength/high con bricks could get by ok, but other builds had more trouble generating end without buying reduced end.

[David Blue]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

I didn't like the second edition END rules and I am in favour of the way it was in fourth edition, because my main concern was with giants and tiny characters. (We all have our favourite concepts.)

 

There was a lot to like about second edition. (END Batteries were no part of the good stuff.) I think some of the changes since then have been for the worse. (And evil complexities seem to grow like weeds - we still have END in bottles, still begging for munchkin exploitation.)

 

But second edition endurance rules were bad for size-changed people. It cost enormous amounts to just be big, and you needed to pick your size or density or shrinking so that it would be on the "good" 15 - 7 -3 - 1 - O END halving track - a classic example of Hero making you do something because of numbers with no simulation value and no regard for what was right for your character. I'd never want to go back to that.

 

(See that little guy saying no-no-no? That's how I feel about that.)

 

Fourth edition meant you just went: I'm a giant! (Or heavy, or tiny.) Half end, no end, persistent, always on, done! And at (approximately) whatever size or weight was right for your character. Oh sweet relief!

 

Fifth edition has mucked it up again, spoiling what should be simple. But that's about bad disadvantage rules and the growing shadow of Mordor - pervasive adjustment, the need for Inherent, the need for a Power Defence that simulates nothing but will cause you to be trivially killed if you don't buy (enough of) it and so on and so forth. END is no longer the main problem.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

I vote with David Blue. I'll also note that one thing I did tend to do as a GM was make some things cost 1 END per 5 AP and others cost 1 END per 10 AP depending on how game-efficient certain AP are compared to others. As we all know, not all AP are created equal.

[zornwil]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

1 end per 5 points made for a lot more constructs built around charges. High strength/high con bricks could get by ok' date=' but other builds had more trouble generating end without buying reduced end.[/quote']

Mmmm, you're right, we'll have to eliminate charges...

 

Seriously, good point, good point, now that you mention I remember charges were indeed more common.

[lemming]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

One of the reasons they went to 1 END/10 AP instead of 1 END/5 AP was the simple fact that most characters had End Reduction on most of their powers. At least that's the rationale that I was given by either George, Steve, or Rob. (I think George or Steve, Rob rubbed me the wrong way)

 

The new End Reduction did simplify the math as well in that now End Reduction was just another advantage instead of an extra step.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

People keep complaining about how difficult Hero is to learn for new players and then go and complicate their games with differing END costs for Powers, or want the return of more complex END reduction rules that meant that virtually everybody would be buying at least 1/2 END on almost all their powers. The latter, incidentally, is the reason why 4th edition changed the END rules, at least according to Rob Bell who helped put together the 4th edition.

[zornwil]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

Thing is, it doesn't have to be complex, though to accomplish the goal. That notwithstanding, people have raised important points around charges and the end battery loophole. The latter was/is easy to close, but the former, I agree, is a tougher bridge to cross.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

I never saw 2nd ed., but what I do know is that I would like some more options for End cost. I am working a lot on fantasy magic right now, and I constantly run into the issue of End costs. I'd like to stay with the current Reduced End Cost Advantages because changing them could impact other things, and I'm not sure they should be more expensive anyway, but I'd really like some way to make a Power cost less than half, or more than half but less than full (and I don't want to just arbitrarily pick a value to make it feel right; if I go there I might as well just go D&D's route of deciding what a spell should do and assigning the whole thing a cost based on gut feel ). I'm using Long Term End for the cost of spells, so the cost matters. Big time!

 

On top of a finer grained scale for End costs, I'd really like some mechanism for reducing the frequency of paying End for Constant Powers. Something like bumping the frequency down the Time Chart, and not allowing End used to fuel that instance of the Power to Recover while the Power is still activated (unless the Power is Uncontrolled--which is another big reason I want this kind of thing). I'd really like some method of making a long-lasting spell that makes sense and doesn't require that I build it with Charges!

 

I'm just tired of coming up with a spell, and making several versions of it at different power levels, and saying, "Why the heck would anyone use the less powerful version of this spell? It doesn't cost any less End, it's only one fewer Active Point, and the End cost is exactly the same." Weeeeee!

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

I never saw 2nd ed.' date=' but what I [i']do[/i] know is that I would like some more options for End cost. I am working a lot on fantasy magic right now, and I constantly run into the issue of End costs. I'd like to stay with the current Reduced End Cost Advantages because changing them could impact other things, and I'm not sure they should be more expensive anyway, but I'd really like some way to make a Power cost less than half, or more than half but less than full (and I don't want to just arbitrarily pick a value to make it feel right; if I go there I might as well just go D&D's route of deciding what a spell should do and assigning the whole thing a cost based on gut feel ). I'm using Long Term End for the cost of spells, so the cost matters. Big time!

 

On top of a finer grained scale for End costs, I'd really like some mechanism for reducing the frequency of paying End for Constant Powers. Something like bumping the frequency down the Time Chart, and not allowing End used to fuel that instance of the Power to Recover while the Power is still activated (unless the Power is Uncontrolled--which is another big reason I want this kind of thing). I'd really like some method of making a long-lasting spell that makes sense and doesn't require that I build it with Charges!

 

I'm just tired of coming up with a spell, and making several versions of it at different power levels, and saying, "Why the heck would anyone use the less powerful version of this spell? It doesn't cost any less End, it's only one fewer Active Point, and the End cost is exactly the same." Weeeeee!

One simple alternative that might help you find your desired level of End granularity for Fantasy would be to keep the 1/10 base cost as in Supers but make Reduced End only half as effective. Example: 3/4 End for (+1/4), 1/2 End for (+1/2), 1/4 End for (+3/4) and 0 End for (+1). Then you can just call it End Reduction since the mechanic is exactly the same for Damage Reduction.

 

HM

[Sean Waters]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

Well, we could tout a new supplement:

 

 

ZIMMER,

the game of battling geriatrics who regularly have to have a bit of a sit down.

 

[zornwil]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

Well, we could tout a new supplement:

 

 

ZIMMER,

the game of battling geriatrics who regularly have to have a bit of a sit down.

 

Bah, I'd sock you for that but I'm a bit tired right now...

 

[prestidigitator]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

One simple alternative that might help you find your desired level of End granularity for Fantasy would be to keep the 1/10 base cost as in Supers but make Reduced End only half as effective. Example: 3/4 End for (+1/4)' date=' 1/2 End for (+1/2), 1/4 End for (+3/4) and 0 End for (+1). Then you can just call it End Reduction since the mechanic is exactly the same for Damage Reduction.[/quote']

That is a possibility. I have also been toying with the idea of just buying all spells by default with Costs x3 End; then I can go pretty far on a relative scale (all the way from costing a sixth of that to just over triple). Since in the magic system I am building spells are cast using a separate End Reserve anyway, it does something to mitigate the unbalancing feel of a cheap End Reserve. It does nothing for the drawn out Constant Powers though; I am afraid that one calls for some pretty new mechanics, unless I'm missing something obvious (base it on the difference between a [EDIT: Recoverable] Continuing Charge of like duration and Costs 0 End, maybe?!?!).

 

What I'd really like is a defined way in the actual system to do all this, as I do find End use a little wanting, all the way from End Reserve to the lack of granularity to the difference between Heroic games and Superheroic ones.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Should END be more? Was 2nd Edition essentially right?

 

That is a possibility. I have also been toying with the idea of just buying all spells by default with Costs x3 End; then I can go pretty far on a relative scale (all the way from costing a sixth of that to just over triple). Since in the magic system I am building spells are cast using a separate End Reserve anyway' date=' it does something to mitigate the unbalancing feel of a cheap End Reserve. It does nothing for the drawn out Constant Powers though; I am afraid that one calls for some pretty new mechanics, unless I'm missing something obvious (base it on the difference between a [EDIT: Recoverable'] Continuing Charge of like duration and Costs 0 End, maybe?!?!).

 

What I'd really like is a defined way in the actual system to do all this, as I do find End use a little wanting, all the way from End Reserve to the lack of granularity to the difference between Heroic games and Superheroic ones.

 

lack of definition is the price we sometimes pay for using a toolkit.

 

I played around with something similar back before 5E came out. I was trying to simulate the WKP stat (Working Karma Points?) out of the game Stalking the Night Fantastic. The premise was to use them as a sort of figured End Reserve that Spells and/or Psi powers had to use. I think I used something like (CON+EGO)x3 for the base End Reserve and (CON+EGO)/5 as the base Recovery per hour (x2 if resting). I then let players take something like a (-1/4 to -1/2) limitation for all spells and/or Psi abilities since they ALL had to cost END, plus they had to use this END Reserve and they could not buy any extra END or REC for it to start with anyway. It forced the powered types to depend on the skilled weapon using types more since they only had a minute or two of power-up time before there batteries went dead. I would tweak the numbers now especially with the optional divide by 3 rule for spells. It didn't work too bad though.

 

HM