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

[Dr. Anomaly]

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

 

I know I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, but I'll toss in my $0.02 anyway.

 

I have conflicting desires when using the HERO system. On the one hand, I love the toolkit approach, using the Powers, Advantages, and Limitations to build things. I am a programmer, and this sort of thing really appeals to the programmer in me.

 

On the other hand, I love the genre of comic book superheroes (mainly Silver Age), and I like the story to flow as well and smoothly as possible. To that end, having to track end can be a bit of a pain. For that reason, when building a character for a first-time player, I frequently reccomend they take 0 END on the powers that are the ones they're liable to use most frequently, as that means there's one less thing for them to track. When I'm statting out NPCs, I very often do the same.

 

On the other hand, using END does allow for some very dramatic moments. I've had a character burn through all their END maintaining a power in a critical situation, have to switch over to burning STUN...and then, because of the dramatic nature of the scene and an appeal from the player, let them switch over to burning BODY to keep the power going! Talk about a truly heroic effort!

 

When all is said and done, I'm perfectly happy with the 1-for-10 END rules as they are now, and 1/2 END = +1/4, 0 END = +1/2 -- but it wouldn't upset me terribly if it were switched back to 1-for-5 END and such instead.

[zornwil]

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

 

...and then' date=' because of the dramatic nature of the scene and an appeal from the player, [i']let them switch over to burning BODY to keep the power going![/i] Talk about a truly heroic effort!

 

Wow, that is a GREAT idea! I would be inclined towards that, anyway, it can make all sorts of dramatic sense - letting the bad guys just rip at you as you do your heroic deed openly, desperate and exposed, or just the fact that what you're doing is so brutal you're body is being beaten by the super-effort. Really nice idea, I think even in general - it allows characters a VERY interesting choice! Of course it shouldn't just be open season (many characters would just shrug at losing a couple BOD, I'm sure), but I can see many applications.

[Dr. Anomaly]

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

 

Wow' date=' that is a GREAT idea! I would be inclined towards that, anyway, it can make all sorts of dramatic sense - letting the bad guys just rip at you as you do your heroic deed openly, desperate and exposed, or just the fact that what you're doing is so brutal you're body is being beaten by the super-effort. Really nice idea, I think even in general - it allows characters a VERY interesting choice! Of course it shouldn't just be open season (many characters would just shrug at losing a couple BOD, I'm sure), but I can see many applications.[/quote']

Thank you. I let them burn BODY at the rate of 1 BODY = 2 END, and the character in question was a flying energy projector, so she didn't have either BODY or CON to spare. She was seriously overloading her Flight in order to keep a plummeting military aircraft from pancaking into the middle of a crowed shopping mall, because if she just destroyed it, the flaming wreckage (not to mention unexploded ordnance, etc.) would do just as big a number on the mall the the direct aircraft impact would have. So she was using her Flight to keep it airborne longer, and steer it to a safe impact point. She had to keep Pushing her flight to be able to affect it (as she was a 15 STR character) and thus burned through her END like a kid through Halloween candy. The character really was giving it everything she had, completely disregarding the consequences to herself in order to try and save the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians. I figured that was dramatic enough to warrant the burning of BODY...especially since it seemed logical, given the way she was continuously overtaxing herself, constantly "redlining" her Flight...

[David Blue]

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

 

Wow' date=' that is a GREAT idea! I would be inclined towards that, anyway, it can make all sorts of dramatic sense - letting the bad guys just rip at you as you do your heroic deed openly, desperate and exposed, or just the fact that what you're doing is so brutal you're body is being beaten by the super-effort. Really nice idea, I think even in general - it allows characters a VERY interesting choice! Of course it shouldn't just be open season (many characters would just shrug at losing a couple BOD, I'm sure), but I can see many applications.[/quote']I've done that, in a game where I was striving to make the high-powered heroism as extreme as I could.

 

It had a similar effect to introducing lots of attacks that will do BODY to a hero (which I also did - on that topic I speak as a repentant sinner). After a while, the players just say: "Regeneration." When I accepted that that was right, and that Regeneration had become free END - not all the time but in the critical frames where you desperately needed it - and your ticket to act super-heroically in a variety of situations, while at the same time diminishing the heroic quality of the sacrifice/action, I stopped doing it.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

I've done that, in a game where I was striving to make the high-powered heroism as extreme as I could.

 

It had a similar effect to introducing lots of attacks that will do BODY to a hero (which I also did - on that topic I speak as a repentant sinner). After a while, the players just say: "Regeneration." When I accepted that that was right, and that Regeneration had become free END - not all the time but in the critical frames where you desperately needed it - and your ticket to act super-heroically in a variety of situations, while at the same time diminishing the heroic quality of the sacrifice/action, I stopped doing it.

Huh. Well, I think I personally wouldn't allow Body used in that fashion to be regenerated in such a simple fashion, just as Long Term End cannot be Recovered quickly in a Heroic game (I don't let Healing restore it--easily--either).

[Mentor]

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...

I'm with Gary on this one. END was far too critical in character design in the old days. I like it to have some relevance, but not to the extent that everyone bought 40 CON as in the past.

[zornwil]

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

 

Personally, I'm even MORE convinced that END as in the old days, probably coupled though with a 350 base start for "regular" superheroes, is superior to how we now do it, in a very general way (Charges and other caveats understood).

 

Nonetheless, I wouldn't change things back either via house rules or the standard HERO rules. Just because of inertia and picking battles, not because it's right.

[David Blue]

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

 

Personally, I'm even MORE convinced that END as in the old days, probably coupled though with a 350 base start for "regular" superheroes, is superior to how we now do it, in a very general way (Charges and other caveats understood).

 

Nonetheless, I wouldn't change things back either via house rules or the standard HERO rules. Just because of inertia and picking battles, not because it's right.

When a friend told me about fourth edition, one of the first things he said was: "It's beautiful now. You can build a plain vanilla energy projector, no tricks, no bull-ship, and he's got enough energy to run a little while, he can recover enough in a decent time because he's not using so much END ..."

 

I'm sure you see the appeal for people who think like my friend and me.

 

So, how would you want us to build our plain vanilla characters? "High CON" is a straight answer, especially if you also say "no charges, no END batteries". I just want to know something about what you think a good character should look like.

[Chromatic]

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

 

Personally, I'm even MORE convinced that END as in the old days, probably coupled though with a 350 base start for "regular" superheroes, is superior to how we now do it, in a very general way (Charges and other caveats understood).

 

Nonetheless, I wouldn't change things back either via house rules or the standard HERO rules. Just because of inertia and picking battles, not because it's right.

 

Two things:

the typical combat with Supers is about 15 seconds. I admit I'm not in the shape I used to be, but I can still run full out for a minute or more without having to stop for a rest at the halfway point. 1/10 active takes that to the extreme. Many more characters these days have everything they do at 0 end. Perhaps a happy medium would be keeping the 1/2 end/0 end advantages (or making them 1/4 end/0 end) with the 1/5 active. Toss the rather spurious "some advantages cost end, some don't"

 

second: end batteries aren't evil. Stupid min-maxing of a single power you would never ever use for the sake of filling an end battery with hundreds of endurance for the other powers is.

 

I would ask, to what end? Are battles becoming too passe? Heros shrugging off having to endure hours and hours of combat? Or would you rather have the campaign play like a football game instead of a comic book, where the heros get obviously worn down quickly and need to fall back and recover.

 

I know I've played around a _lot_ with recovery/end batteries/charges/speed to simulate different effects. Witness that clockwork form in your campaign.

 

Personally, I think that the latest rules are a bit "end" light.

[Vondy]

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

 

I generally try to build characters whose endurance outlay, following post-12 recovery, comes out to zero. I don't want to track any endurance other than pushing expenditiures. If I can't hit the efficiency mark because of the concept I opt for a burn at full power for four turns without stopping policy (four turns being more than enough time to resolve most battles). I've found I tend to opt for concepts that are more endurance efficient, or can rely on charges. I'm also a big fan of 0-end.

[zornwil]

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

 

Two things:

the typical combat with Supers is about 15 seconds. I admit I'm not in the shape I used to be, but I can still run full out for a minute or more without having to stop for a rest at the halfway point. 1/10 active takes that to the extreme. Many more characters these days have everything they do at 0 end. Perhaps a happy medium would be keeping the 1/2 end/0 end advantages (or making them 1/4 end/0 end) with the 1/5 active. Toss the rather spurious "some advantages cost end, some don't"

 

second: end batteries aren't evil. Stupid min-maxing of a single power you would never ever use for the sake of filling an end battery with hundreds of endurance for the other powers is.

 

I would ask, to what end? Are battles becoming too passe? Heros shrugging off having to endure hours and hours of combat? Or would you rather have the campaign play like a football game instead of a comic book, where the heros get obviously worn down quickly and need to fall back and recover.

 

I know I've played around a _lot_ with recovery/end batteries/charges/speed to simulate different effects. Witness that clockwork form in your campaign.

 

Personally, I think that the latest rules are a bit "end" light.

I just think that it's closer to adventure stuff, including comics, with END being weighted more heavily. It goes back to comments about whether supers rest in comic books, I think they do, in those "reflective" panels. And in general, I think one should either be END-conscious or pay it off, in essence, and that tying up points in END the way 2nd/1st did it was more effective in terms of the way it forced choices in the power design. Of course I'd be, OTOH, liberal with recovery processes. But I'll address that to Rob's question.

[zornwil]

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

 

When a friend told me about fourth edition, one of the first things he said was: "It's beautiful now. You can build a plain vanilla energy projector, no tricks, no bull-ship, and he's got enough energy to run a little while, he can recover enough in a decent time because he's not using so much END ..."

 

I'm sure you see the appeal for people who think like my friend and me.

 

So, how would you want us to build our plain vanilla characters? "High CON" is a straight answer, especially if you also say "no charges, no END batteries". I just want to know something about what you think a good character should look like.

I'm fundamentally okay with Charges, just a good question as to costing I think in the old stuff. I also think that 0 END should be easier than 2nd did it (some sort of max, I think +1/2 is way too liberal but I might go for +1). And CON is a good approach.

[zornwil]

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

 

PS to both above posts - Chromatic might note that, and I meant to mention to Warp 9 that, I also did amend the old END stuff in that while I did 1/5, I did it as 1/5 Base. And when Chromatic was playing as per my rules on this I was doing what I had started in doing in my prior campaign, +1/4 for 1/2 END, +1/2 for 0 END.

 

My feeling, I meant to add to the post above to Warp 9, is that it was easier to "tweak from" as I did and as many people did from the original version of END than it is from this version. But I acknowledge by far the klunkiness of the old edition, as well as of course the increased END cost, and even I did something about the latter. I just think it was better to have the most stringent version in the rules.

[Silbeg]

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

 

Thank you. I let them burn BODY at the rate of 1 BODY = 2 END' date=' and the character in question was a flying energy projector, so she didn't have either BODY or CON to spare. She was [i']seriously[/i] overloading her Flight in order to keep a plummeting military aircraft from pancaking into the middle of a crowed shopping mall, because if she just destroyed it, the flaming wreckage (not to mention unexploded ordnance, etc.) would do just as big a number on the mall the the direct aircraft impact would have. So she was using her Flight to keep it airborne longer, and steer it to a safe impact point. She had to keep Pushing her flight to be able to affect it (as she was a 15 STR character) and thus burned through her END like a kid through Halloween candy. The character really was giving it everything she had, completely disregarding the consequences to herself in order to try and save the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians. I figured that was dramatic enough to warrant the burning of BODY...especially since it seemed logical, given the way she was continuously overtaxing herself, constantly "redlining" her Flight...

 

Sounds like a situation that happened in my game, where the team's t-port specialist (ok, that is ALL he can do... but...) was responding to a malfunctioning ride (those of you who have the adventure supplement know what I am talking about...) He didn't have nearly the STR, or the time (only a few seconds) to be able to save the dozen or so people on the plummeting ride, so expanded his "You are a missile" offensive teleport to encompass the entire ride. Oh, yeah, he also had to nullify the velocity, which made it even tougher!

 

I didn't really worry about END/STUN/BODY at this time, as this was effectively a push of about 100 END... or so...which was far more than he ever had... Basically, when he came to, he was bleeding through his ears, eyes, etc... and I ruled that he had taken 1/3 of his STUN/BODY/END as damage, which could only be healed naturally at the REC/month rate. The player was cool about this, and wasn't too long before he was finding more ways to burn himself out...

[Silbeg]

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

 

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!

 

Actually, it has been our experience that buying most powers to 0END just isn't worth it. Typically, combats last less than 2 turns, so if your character can go all out for 1½-2 turns, he will usually do alright.

 

While my game doesn't have a hard active point cap, we do look at all constructs for balance. Many of the characters are built around multipowers for their attack suites, and this has a tendency to limit the effectiveness of 0END on some slots. Even buying 1/2 END is pretty rare in my game, usually limited to powers such as flight or Force Field (and since we are rather brick heavy...)

 

I really feel that the balance is pretty good right now. Take as an example Armor vs Force Field. If you buy your FF as 0END, you have the equivelent DEF for the same points. However, Armor still has significant advantages, innately. First, it is persistent by nature, which would be an additional +1/2 for the Force Field. Additionally, the fact that you have armor is not readily apparent (requires the additional -1/4 "Visible" limitation), since it does not cost END.

 

In any case, I have been happy with the "simplified" END rules that have been in existence since the BBB.

[zornwil]

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

 

I tend to think combats should last longer, but I well understand I am in a deep minority on that.

 

PS - I also realize that in general it would be bad for the game to systemically enforce that

[Chromatic]

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

 

Interesting that you desire to have combats taking longer, yet the house-rules we use in your campaign lend towards faster combat (the body of the attack reducing defenses).

 

To set lengths of combat you have to factor in more than just End use. It's very similar to how a GM sets the power level of the bad guys. Take into consideration how much damage the heros can take, and how big a chunk of that total is going to be done with each successful hit. Then figure out how often the attack might be successful given the ocv/dcv involved. Now you have an idea of the total number of phases that Hero is going to last in combat. I know this very well from personal experience playing for the most part a "glass jawed normal guy". In his typical form, Laughton only has 22 stun (similarly to Nexus who spent a great deal of the recent past combats knocked out). Unless Laughton is lucky, or I pull out a trick from his bag of options, I know if he gets hit by someone other than a thug, he's gonna be stunned, and then soon after (like next phase) out.

 

Thus with a limited exposure to combat more than likely, Laughton either avoids it, or goes for the front loaded "take out main threat". I plan on only being effective for 3 or 4 phases in combat, and thus generally push my first attack (using up the lion's share of my End in the process).

 

As well, consider the combat mode, clockwork form. By design, the form is limited to the number of phases it can act (about 6 carefully planned actions/attacks) before rather large efforts are made to reset it (me and one other character have to spend two phases).

 

The point is, combat in your campaign does not last a long time typically. It's dangerous for the heros involved, and we've (well I've) planned to make it as quick as possible, or avoided all together. So to that end (pun intended), End in your campaign's case is too cheap. It could easily be reverted back to 1/5 with little real effect on the mechanics of combat, though I know some of the heros will require some auditing to reset expectations and experiences.

 

All this said, I think how it's set up is fine, the games are a tremendous amount of fun to play in, and the focus is on the contrived plots and personalities instead of what battle is going to be fought next. If combats lasted longer, they would become more of the focus of the game. That's fine if you want that kind of thing, but playing a hard boiled detective with triple digit intelligence doesn't lend itself very well to that environment....of course there is that 15' tall clock-work golem form.........

[Trebuchet]

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

 

Sounds like a situation that happened in my game, where the team's t-port specialist (ok, that is ALL he can do... but...) was responding to a malfunctioning ride (those of you who have the adventure supplement know what I am talking about...) He didn't have nearly the STR, or the time (only a few seconds) to be able to save the dozen or so people on the plummeting ride, so expanded his "You are a missile" offensive teleport to encompass the entire ride. Oh, yeah, he also had to nullify the velocity, which made it even tougher!

 

I didn't really worry about END/STUN/BODY at this time, as this was effectively a push of about 100 END... or so...which was far more than he ever had... Basically, when he came to, he was bleeding through his ears, eyes, etc... and I ruled that he had taken 1/3 of his STUN/BODY/END as damage, which could only be healed naturally at the REC/month rate. The player was cool about this, and wasn't too long before he was finding more ways to burn himself out...

Results like that, where the character is badly hurt due to heroic action but doesn't (quite) die, is a great incentive to try dangerous stunts in a campaign; and IMO often results in good roleplaying. So are a dozen normals, fellow heroes, and newspaper articles loudly proclaiming that the character in question is a true hero.

[Silbeg]

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

 

I tend to think combats should last longer, but I well understand I am in a deep minority on that.

 

PS - I also realize that in general it would be bad for the game to systemically enforce that

 

I would agree, as comic book battles seem to take longer than the average 15 second Champions combat. However, while I would like battles to last longer in game terms, I would like them to move more quickly in real time.

 

I don't believe that tinkering with END will have the effect of modifying the time it takes to play a combat.

 

IMHO, playability should be first, then genre compliance, and finally realism.

[Agemegos]

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

 

1 end per 5 points made for a lot more constructs built around charges.

 

I remember very well! I always thought it was a major abuse that I could take a power with such a high END cost that I could never use it at all and then make myself able to use it by attaching a disad.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

I would agree' date=' as comic book battles seem to take longer than the average 15 second Champions combat. However, while I would like battles to last longer in [i']game terms[/i], I would like them to move more quickly in real time.

We have found, in our 12 year old campaign, that it helps to treat each Phase as a single panel in a comic book rather than as a specific interval of time. It never hurts to insert a few soliloquies and pauses in the action either.

 

I think one reason comic and movie fights last longer is that they are often integrated with chases. Consider Indiana Jones chasing down the German convoy in Raiders of the Lost Ark to recover the Ark. A very long scene, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how you'd break it down as discreet elements of pursuit and combat.

[zornwil]

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

 

Interesting that you desire to have combats taking longer, yet the house-rules we use in your campaign lend towards faster combat (the body of the attack reducing defenses).

 

To set lengths of combat you have to factor in more than just End use. It's very similar to how a GM sets the power level of the bad guys. Take into consideration how much damage the heros can take, and how big a chunk of that total is going to be done with each successful hit. Then figure out how often the attack might be successful given the ocv/dcv involved. Now you have an idea of the total number of phases that Hero is going to last in combat. I know this very well from personal experience playing for the most part a "glass jawed normal guy". In his typical form, Laughton only has 22 stun (similarly to Nexus who spent a great deal of the recent past combats knocked out). Unless Laughton is lucky, or I pull out a trick from his bag of options, I know if he gets hit by someone other than a thug, he's gonna be stunned, and then soon after (like next phase) out.

 

Thus with a limited exposure to combat more than likely, Laughton either avoids it, or goes for the front loaded "take out main threat". I plan on only being effective for 3 or 4 phases in combat, and thus generally push my first attack (using up the lion's share of my End in the process).

 

As well, consider the combat mode, clockwork form. By design, the form is limited to the number of phases it can act (about 6 carefully planned actions/attacks) before rather large efforts are made to reset it (me and one other character have to spend two phases).

 

The point is, combat in your campaign does not last a long time typically. It's dangerous for the heros involved, and we've (well I've) planned to make it as quick as possible, or avoided all together. So to that end (pun intended), End in your campaign's case is too cheap. It could easily be reverted back to 1/5 with little real effect on the mechanics of combat, though I know some of the heros will require some auditing to reset expectations and experiences.

 

All this said, I think how it's set up is fine, the games are a tremendous amount of fun to play in, and the focus is on the contrived plots and personalities instead of what battle is going to be fought next. If combats lasted longer, they would become more of the focus of the game. That's fine if you want that kind of thing, but playing a hard boiled detective with triple digit intelligence doesn't lend itself very well to that environment....of course there is that 15' tall clock-work golem form.........

 

Thanks much re the comments on the games in particular.

 

I want everyone else to have longer combats, not me!

 

Seriously, I agree, in that I'm happy with it and as you know I'd go ahead and house rule otherwise. I ran the games more liberal on END in the old days as noted elsewhere. It's more of how I see it in a genre sense and how I think many who are complaining are alluding to want to get to, and I think it's easier to know the conservative baseline, though grant that's not necessarily the right way to go.

 

As to END and combat, I think the ripple effect of people sinking costs into END and away from a bit of power or otherwise paying a bit more tended to force other combat modifications to slow it down a bit.

 

Oddly, I think what I'm advocating is a bit of what I personally would see as a "worst of both worlds," what I perceive as Steve Long's approach to higher attack to defense ratio plus this END drag, so you get more big punches and some choreography around it. This does seem to be at least comic booky, possibly address other genres, but I'd probably stay away from it.

[Vondy]

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

 

Thanks much re the comments on the games in particular.

 

I want everyone else to have longer combats, not me!

 

Seriously, I agree, in that I'm happy with it and as you know I'd go ahead and house rule otherwise. I ran the games more liberal on END in the old days as noted elsewhere. It's more of how I see it in a genre sense and how I think many who are complaining are alluding to want to get to, and I think it's easier to know the conservative baseline, though grant that's not necessarily the right way to go.

 

As to END and combat, I think the ripple effect of people sinking costs into END and away from a bit of power or otherwise paying a bit more tended to force other combat modifications to slow it down a bit.

 

Oddly, I think what I'm advocating is a bit of what I personally would see as a "worst of both worlds," what I perceive as Steve Long's approach to higher attack to defense ratio plus this END drag, so you get more big punches and some choreography around it. This does seem to be at least comic booky, possibly address other genres, but I'd probably stay away from it.

 

Our combats generally ran 2-3 turns, with a fourth turn being uncommon, but not out of scope. Longer combats are rare.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

One and a half to two Turns are the norm in our campaign, although some have been as long as 3 and a half Turns. IIRC our longest duration fight was a running battle across the rooftops of London near the Thames shopping district. I think Zl'f ended up nearly 11 city blocks away from where the battle started with an armored car heist. (The villain she was chasing flew (leapt?) faster than Zl'f runs per Phase, but Zl'f's SPD was higher so it was actually a pretty tense chase.) I'm not certain how far that translates to in meters, but I'm sure it was well over a kilometer.

[zornwil]

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

 

I remember our longest battles in my prior campaign included some 5 turn ones, specifically/especially during the matches for the Sorcerer Supreme position.