END -- Do You Need It?

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It is this aspect... throwing low and medium level attacks to set up for a couple big ones... that I wish Hero did better. It took me changing the pushing rule to allow for really big attacks to get that feel at all. Now, the 12 or 14d6 attack IS the medium attack... and the big, all out attack is a pushed attack up to half the active points. Happens once... twice if lucky in a combat.

 

What happens then is a change is psychology. I don't have a 14d6 EB... I have a 21d6 EB... but I normally use it at 14d6. More effectively, you'd throw 8d6 around... go up to 14d6 on occassion... but players never do this. They use the maximum dice allowable on their sheet almost every time.

 

There are a couple ways this could be emphasized more... but it is a matter of play style. Many of my players do NOT feel super unless they can throw 14d6 all day long and not worry about END. I wish they could see that 8d6 is their jab... 8d6 is their jab... 14d6 is their round-house knock out punch... but that psychology has never clicked. I got it by allowing 14d6 to be the jab... and pushing to 21d6 is the knockout blast.

 

If the game ramped up END faster... say after 8d6, it cost 1 END per five points instead of ten, you might see this.

 

Also, END book keeping is so clunky. Play needs to be fast and sleek. I'd think a concept like recoverable charges would work better. I've got five charges (Five Big END) and when I use 'em up, I have to take an action to recover. Get all five back, keep fighting. I think something like this would work well... and lead to some of the same... "If I stop to recover NOW... even though I have a couple Big END left... then I can press him harder... or maybe I leave myself open." decisions that you have now, but without too much addition and subtraction.

 

Other than that, like I said before... I really like END as a govenor of character power, actions, growth... and as a mechanic to drive dramatic combat... I just wish it was sleeker... less cumbersome.

 

The problem you mention is not easily soluble: if 8d6 is a normal attack, 14d6, which averages 21 STUN more damage through defences is inevitably a KO blow, unless the opponent rols with the punch, dodges or whatever

 

One idea would be to make people pay to abort: say 5 END, or even 10, like a push. Also make your characters buy double END on any attacks over 8d6, and double that again for attacks over 12d6.

 

This would encourage the use of smaller attacks to wear down the opponent. you might even allow 'body blows' - half the damage is taken to STUN and half to END to tire them so that they don't have the END to abort to a defensive manoeuvre when you throw a big punch.

 

Also look at block. Something oft forgotten is that it has the effect on combat of making your opponent go second. It wouldn't be too much of a problem to expand the martial arts rules to have manoeuvres that reduced opponent's DCV, which would then encourage the use of low DC 'softeners' followed up by high DC 'finishers' when the opponent is wide open.

 

I like your idea of limited big attacks with charges too, but in the average combat the average player would unload them all in the first few phases trying to take the opponent down, unless there was good reason not to.

 

Can't think of a way of keeping the END but streamlining the recording, unless you work out an average END per turn, and apply the difference between that and your REC at PS12, only individually recording exceptional expenditures, like increased END attacks and pushes.

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Cool idea for longer term fatigue' date=' there, RDU Neil![/quote']

 

Thanks. Nobody else mentioned it (love it, hate it... whatever) so I wondered if I should post it seperately. It is definitely more of a Game Rule/Play Experience guideline... not necessary or suitable for all games or play styles... but something I'd like to see available for reference, if nothing else.

 

Me... I'm in a constant state of "Burnt"

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

One idea would be to make people pay to abort: say 5 END, or even 10, like a push. Also make your characters buy double END on any attacks over 8d6, and double that again for attacks over 12d6.

 

 

I really... REALLY like this. I think it would be a perfect govenor for this ability, which I feel gets abused all the time. It would allow players to do it... but at a cost that adds up pretty quickly. That psychological/physical stress of going defensive when focused otherwise... that is perfect.

 

Brilliant, I'd almost say. I love it. I'm going to try it out this week!

 

Rep to you.

[austenandrews]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

In my experience since END is not simple in the combat rules, it winds up getting simplified in the character creation phase instead, with less savvy players essentially being penalized for not doing so. Which seems backwards to me - in terms of game design, you want to make a game easier for new players with optional levels of bookkeeping for more experienced players. For that reason, RDU Neil, I like your idea of making END less granular for the simple case. Let it get complicated only if the player chooses a more advanced character construct.

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I've never really spent time on this... but I alwasy wanted an abstract Medium and Long Term END concept. Something that would likely work out as an Exhaustion Chart. Something that generalizes how many fights have you been in? How much rest have you had? What other activities have you been doing? Etc. Probably something like Five Levels of Exhaustion with descriptors.

 

Burnt - End of the day, been in a fight, traveled long distance... -1 to Ego Roll for pushing or other activities.

Tired - Hard days work, been in a couple of fights or a really long one, almost a full cycle without sleep, dealing with really weird stuff... -2 to Ego Roll when needed, -1 over all CV

Weary - Non-stop activity over a cycle, combat has become warfare, utterly bizarre events... -2 to Ego & INT roll, -2 overall CV

Exhausted - more than two cycles of activity/combat, no rest, divorced from any normal support systems... -3 to everything

Staggering - pushed to the brink, beginning to disassociate, dead on your feet... -4 to everything

 

(Note: I'm making this up as I write, so it certainly would need more work.)

 

 

Like the concept but not sure how to apply it except 'as it seems appropriate'. One option would be to make a character do a CON roll each time they use more than a certain amount of END, perhaps keyed to their biggest attack, or whatever. Perhaps whenever the character uses a ceryain amount of END they make a CON roll, failure indicating that the become Burnt or move further down the exhaustion chart. If characters are designed so that their most damaging attacks cost the most END this should be a useful way to ensure they are not abused - also it will limit the potential for pushing etc.

 

An unlucky character could end up Staggering quite quickly, so we could perhaps say that if the CON roll is made by half you recover a level - get a second wind, in effect?

 

KnightFall, anyone?

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

In my experience since END is not simple in the combat rules' date=' it winds up getting simplified in the character creation phase instead, with less savvy players essentially being penalized for not doing so. Which seems backwards to me - in terms of game design, you want to make a game easier for new players with optional levels of bookkeeping for more experienced players. For that reason, RDU Neil, I like your idea of making END less granular for the simple case. Let it get complicated only if the player chooses a more advanced character construct.[/quote']

 

This is a great observation. Something that has buzzed around in my head, but you just nailed it.

 

Not only with managing END... but where ELSE does Hero make the actual Play Experience "more difficult" the less savy you are in character construction?

 

Ease of actual play should be the DEFAULT... not something you have to have advanced mechanic knowledge to achieve. END is a great example, as you stated: Default - lots of book keeping and ineffective characters who exhaust themselves... Advanced Version - factor reduced END cost, minimal book keeping, effective characters. Backward from a play experience perspective.

 

The more I think about this... the more I think that this is probably the biggest hurdle the Hero system has in terms of appeal. It is the fact that the system requires a committed, strong knowledge... not to make Play Experience deeper... but to actually make it FUN!

 

The default position should be "simple but uncomplicated fun" not "unbalanced, klunky and frustrating" You shouldn't have to add complexity to make the play experience fun. Complexity should add depth that is optional, not required to make the game flow better.

 

Wow... this is a big issue (maybe just for freaks like me and Zornwil that like to think about this shit... ) It says that Hero might suffer as a system/game... because it approaches game design almost backwards from play expectations.

 

Wow... a lot to think about here... I'm going to have to get back to you on this. Rep for the brain worm, though.

 

(Uh... crap... well, Rep when I can actually give you some... durn it...)

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Like the concept but not sure how to apply it except 'as it seems appropriate'. One option would be to make a character do a CON roll each time they use more than a certain amount of END, perhaps keyed to their biggest attack, or whatever. Perhaps whenever the character uses a ceryain amount of END they make a CON roll, failure indicating that the become Burnt or move further down the exhaustion chart. If characters are designed so that their most damaging attacks cost the most END this should be a useful way to ensure they are not abused - also it will limit the potential for pushing etc.

 

An unlucky character could end up Staggering quite quickly, so we could perhaps say that if the CON roll is made by half you recover a level - get a second wind, in effect?

 

KnightFall, anyone?

 

I didn't intend it to be a mechanic level addition... but a Game Rule guideline... something for the GM to look at when appropriate to help say, "Hey... you guys have been going non-stop for three days... so you are all at the Tired level now!" or whatever.

 

Again, play style will vary. I'm not a stickler for absolute "must roll... move on the chart" kind of mechanics. Too many bog the game down, and that wasn't my intent at all.

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I didn't intend it to be a mechanic level addition... but a Game Rule guideline... something for the GM to look at when appropriate to help say, "Hey... you guys have been going non-stop for three days... so you are all at the Tired level now!" or whatever.

 

Again, play style will vary. I'm not a stickler for absolute "must roll... move on the chart" kind of mechanics. Too many bog the game down, and that wasn't my intent at all.

 

Fair enough, and, combining it with austinandrews observations, maybe the solution is to heavily recommend 0 END to starting players, or build their characters for them with that in place, then you can just assume that they pay END per turn = SPEED plus any pushes or special attacks that do cost END?

 

That would mean that there's very little book keeping, except for things where it may be dramatically relevant.

 

I'm wary of ditching the END system entirely as I think it does a lot of good in the game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I really... REALLY like this. I think it would be a perfect govenor for this ability, which I feel gets abused all the time. It would allow players to do it... but at a cost that adds up pretty quickly. That psychological/physical stress of going defensive when focused otherwise... that is perfect.

 

Brilliant, I'd almost say. I love it. I'm going to try it out this week!

 

Rep to you.

 

Well, on the infinite monkies principle, if I drone on long enough something that makes sense must come out.......but thank you for your kind words anyway

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I don't know if it's an oversight on the part of the game's designers or just reflecting a common practice; I've seen many a PC who could only go all out in combat for one or two Turns. They go for the first-round KO rather than the ability to drag out the fight and wear him down. It's a perfectly valid strategy, but it won't work on all opponents and if you haven't dropped the bad guy by the time you run out of END to keep up your Force Field and Flight you're in serious trouble.

 

As the guy who plays the Nimble Distractor in our campaign, I can attest to the necessity of keeping an eye on END usage. Zl'f has only 36 END and a 12 REC to go with her SPD 9, so if she doesn't watch her END she can run outta juice very quickly, especially since her specialty attacks (AP, PEN, etc.) all use 4 END per use. For that very reason she usually sticks to her 0 END martial maneuvers. But she's managed to outlast plenty of high END users over the years because if she needs to she can use only 1 END per Phase (for her STR).

 

I'm certain it's just a problem of common practice. Real people don't operate at full power for very long and, for the most part, neither to fictional people, even supers. Anyone can think of Superman being nearly inexhaustable, but many others we can think of (or have even seen, often) getting tired. Maybe they don't get tired often, but thats because they don't go all out all the time. They know when to hold back a little, when to conserve their strength, and that's what makes them super.

 

I do realize that for many players, doing things like holding phase for defense because you are running out of END, or ducking behind something so you can take a recovery doesn't seem heroic. I agree. My suggestion is to try to never get into those situations. Conserve your END before you are almost out of it. Heroic is holding back until you need it, not dishing it out from the get go. If you dish it all out in the first attack the villain instanly knows the limits of you ability. If you dish it all out in the first attack, you can't dazzle the villain and the "audiance" by popping back with a very powerful attack aftering seeming winded, and then popping another right afterward because you really weren't winded, you were just biding your time.

 

It just shocks me how most players treat their character's in combat and squander their END, or seem forced to make characters that are especially END efficient so they can operate and full power for the entire combat. I don't think it's necessary and that it's a waste of points (well, unless being such a character is in concept).

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I've never really spent time on this... but I alwasy wanted an abstract Medium and Long Term END concept. Something that would likely work out as an Exhaustion Chart. Something that generalizes how many fights have you been in? How much rest have you had? What other activities have you been doing? Etc. Probably something like Five Levels of Exhaustion with descriptors.

 

Burnt - End of the day, been in a fight, traveled long distance... -1 to Ego Roll for pushing or other activities.

Tired - Hard days work, been in a couple of fights or a really long one, almost a full cycle without sleep, dealing with really weird stuff... -2 to Ego Roll when needed, -1 over all CV

Weary - Non-stop activity over a cycle, combat has become warfare, utterly bizarre events... -2 to Ego & INT roll, -2 overall CV

Exhausted - more than two cycles of activity/combat, no rest, divorced from any normal support systems... -3 to everything

Staggering - pushed to the brink, beginning to disassociate, dead on your feet... -4 to everything

 

(Note: I'm making this up as I write, so it certainly would need more work.)

 

Characters who are superhuman and beyond would be able to buy something like "Life Support" that would make them relatively immune to levels of this. 3 points per level or something... so for 15 points Superman would never even get "burnt" except in the most extreme situations.

 

Again... this is more of a Role Playing guideline... but often the longer term effects of stress and combat and travel and activity are the more interesting effects... where actual combat usually only needs an occassional "hands on hips gasping for breath recovery" before getting back to the action.

 

Anway... just a thought.

 

I really like this. I don't know how it could be adjucated in game, but the idea is cool.

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

One idea would be to make people pay to abort: say 5 END, or even 10, like a push. Also make your characters buy double END on any attacks over 8d6, and double that again for attacks over 12d6.

 

This would encourage the use of smaller attacks to wear down the opponent. you might even allow 'body blows' - half the damage is taken to STUN and half to END to tire them so that they don't have the END to abort to a defensive manoeuvre when you throw a big punch.

 

It would also disgourage people to abort. Aborting not only can save the character's but by avoiding an attack, but acting defensively should never cost as much END as acting offensively.

 

Charging extra END for more powerful attacks as a default also seems bit clunky. A better solution (well, one that doesn't involve a house rule) is to encourage players not to build endless END characters. If they have a danger of getting winded using high powered attacks, that alone should discourage them.

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I do realize that for many players, doing things like holding phase for defense because you are running out of END, or ducking behind something so you can take a recovery doesn't seem heroic. I agree. My suggestion is to try to never get into those situations. Conserve your END before you are almost out of it. Heroic is holding back until you need it, not dishing it out from the get go. If you dish it all out in the first attack the villain instanly knows the limits of you ability. If you dish it all out in the first attack, you can't dazzle the villain and the "audiance" by popping back with a very powerful attack aftering seeming winded, and then popping another right afterward because you really weren't winded, you were just biding your time.

 

It just shocks me how most players treat their character's in combat and squander their END, or seem forced to make characters that are especially END efficient so they can operate and full power for the entire combat. I don't think it's necessary and that it's a waste of points (well, unless being such a character is in concept).

This is also a great justification for the big attack slot you don't use often: It's 4d6 more than your regular attack, but uses 4X END or the like. So you bide your time to gauge just how tough the bad guy is, then when he's looking a bit ragged from your regular hits (or laughing at how feeble you are) you slam him with the Pushed Xtra Large attack and put him down for the count. Not only is it good tactics, but it makes you look good too.

 

And that is why we do this, right?

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It would also disgourage people to abort. Aborting not only can save the character's but by avoiding an attack, but acting defensively should never cost as much END as acting offensively.

 

Charging extra END for more powerful attacks as a default also seems bit clunky. A better solution (well, one that doesn't involve a house rule) is to encourage players not to build endless END characters. If they have a danger of getting winded using high powered attacks, that alone should discourage them.

 

It may discourage aborting... but would ENCOURAGE holding an action for defense if necessary. I want to discourage aborting. I want a charater who has committed to an attack to not have a 100% sure fail safe of aborting to block or dodge... but instead actually risk leaving themselves open. They can still abort if really necessary... but it is a superhuman effort to do so... so it costs 5 END.

 

That is how I feel about "Aborting to defensive action/power." It is certainly possible... in genre to do so... but it is also in genre that it takes "effort" to do this. You've committed to an attack, and have to adjust at the last second to go defensive. It should take massive effort to do this, IMO.

 

Overall, it fits my desire to see END be a regulator for "super actions" not something that should make "common actions" a book keeping nightmare.

 

maybe the solution is to heavily recommend 0 END to starting players, or build their characters for them with that in place, then you can just assume that they pay END per turn = SPEED plus any pushes or special attacks that do cost END?

 

That would mean that there's very little book keeping, except for things where it may be dramatically relevant.

 

Something like this. That END is important/relevent for the "dramatic" or "super" actions... but doesn't bog down the more common activities. Being super should mean... IMO of course... not worrying about what would tire out a normal... instead you tire yourself out doing super things!

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

This is also a great justification for the big attack slot you don't use often: It's 4d6 more than your regular attack, but uses 4X END or the like. So you bide your time to gauge just how tough the bad guy is, then when he's looking a bit ragged from your regular hits (or laughing at how feeble you are) you slam him with the Pushed Xtra Large attack and put him down for the count. Not only is it good tactics, but it makes you look good too.

 

And that is why we do this, right?

 

Essentially, my pushing rules allow for any character to do this. They don't have to have bought a power to exemplify it. It's a pretty straight up concept that any super should be able to try... why should only those players that have the depth of system knowledge to figure out how to pay points for it get to do it? Make it a generic rule that... like a maneuver... that any player can use... like Haymaker or whatever.

 

Again... play style issues... but I long ago got tired of expecting players to have the depth of system knowledge and have spent 18 hours building their character to put down a MP slot for every conceivable, intricate, flexible use of their power that they MIGHT someday want to have.

 

I'd rather have a general mechanic/game rule that allows this as par for the course. END and Pushing... which already exist... are perfect regulators for this kind of thing. (Throw in my Luck Chit/Blue Chit element where they can alter their power as a one-off, and you have characters highly flexible and nuanced beyond what is indicated on their sheet.)

 

YMMV, of course.

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It may discourage aborting... but would ENCOURAGE holding an action for defense if necessary. I want to discourage aborting. I want a charater who has committed to an attack to not have a 100% sure fail safe of aborting to block or dodge... but instead actually risk leaving themselves open. They can still abort if really necessary... but it is a superhuman effort to do so... so it costs 5 END.

I'm not necessarily adverse to the idea, but isn't the fact the character in question already loses a Phase and (in most cases) expends END to Abort anyway enough of a penalty? Especially if they DfC and hence half their DCV?

 

Perhaps simply making the Abort cost 2X END to what it normally does would still provide a sufficient disincentive?

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

This is also a great justification for the big attack slot you don't use often: It's 4d6 more than your regular attack, but uses 4X END or the like. So you bide your time to gauge just how tough the bad guy is, then when he's looking a bit ragged from your regular hits (or laughing at how feeble you are) you slam him with the Pushed Xtra Large attack and put him down for the count. Not only is it good tactics, but it makes you look good too.

 

And that is why we do this, right?

 

Exactly! And I like building the extra END costs into the character rather than the rules. It allows for characters to have a powerful attack they can use all the time (if they wanted to) without hurting themselves. It also keeps the GM from needing different house rules for NPCs (like Dr Destroyer and his 30d6 EB) or being forced to redo every villain so that they don't run out of END becuase they are acting in character.

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It may discourage aborting... but would ENCOURAGE holding an action for defense if necessary. I want to discourage aborting. I want a charater who has committed to an attack to not have a 100% sure fail safe of aborting to block or dodge... but instead actually risk leaving themselves open. They can still abort if really necessary... but it is a superhuman effort to do so... so it costs 5 END.

 

That is how I feel about "Aborting to defensive action/power." It is certainly possible... in genre to do so... but it is also in genre that it takes "effort" to do this. You've committed to an attack, and have to adjust at the last second to go defensive. It should take massive effort to do this, IMO.

 

Overall, it fits my desire to see END be a regulator for "super actions" not something that should make "common actions" a book keeping nightmare.

 

 

 

Something like this. That END is important/relevent for the "dramatic" or "super" actions... but doesn't bog down the more common activities. Being super should mean... IMO of course... not worrying about what would tire out a normal... instead you tire yourself out doing super things!

 

But aborting to dodge just isn't that exhaustive. You're telling me that it takes more effort for bob the janitor to duck a thrown bucket than it does for him to throw his key ring at you? And not just more effort, but 5 or 10 times the effort?

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Essentially, my pushing rules allow for any character to do this. They don't have to have bought a power to exemplify it. It's a pretty straight up concept that any super should be able to try... why should only those players that have the depth of system knowledge to figure out how to pay points for it get to do it? Make it a generic rule that... like a maneuver... that any player can use... like Haymaker or whatever.

 

Again... play style issues... but I long ago got tired of expecting players to have the depth of system knowledge and have spent 18 hours building their character to put down a MP slot for every conceivable, intricate, flexible use of their power that they MIGHT someday want to have.

 

I'd rather have a general mechanic/game rule that allows this as par for the course. END and Pushing... which already exist... are perfect regulators for this kind of thing. (Throw in my Luck Chit/Blue Chit element where they can alter their power as a one-off, and you have characters highly flexible and nuanced beyond what is indicated on their sheet.)

 

YMMV, of course.

 

I have a similar Pushng rule, but mine represents an additional bit of exhaustion for the character. If the Push by more than 10 points, it requires and EGO roll and the Power Pushed in that way is Drained by the amount it was Pushed by (recovers normally). It simulates litterally giving it your all and whiping youself out to perform one powerful action. But if a character wanted to be able to perform such a feat without those drawback (except the END loss), I would allow them to buy such Power.

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

But aborting to dodge just isn't that exhaustive. You're telling me that it takes more effort for bob the janitor to duck a thrown bucket than it does for him to throw his key ring at you? And not just more effort' date=' but 5 or 10 times the effort?[/quote']

 

I'm not talking about having an open action to dodge... I'm talking about the abort... which translates to "in the middle of also attacking or moving, I somehow also twist and contort at the last second to avoid an attack I didn't see coming until the last second!"

 

Yes... this should be really hard to do, IMO. It is fighting aggressively, and then shifting focus and concentration and body in a different direction at the drop of a hat. It doesn't have to be PHYSICALLY exhausting, but it can be mentally taxing... and END can also be a factor in how distracted and discombobulated you are in combat. Taking a Rec isn't just catching your breath... it can be "getting my bearings" as well.

 

Now, maybe 5 END is too much... but I like Treb's X2 idea. Then a Dodge is just 2 END... but throwing up your Force Field (if you actually pay END for it) is double. Minimum 1 END spent at least.

 

I think END... for many folks... doesn't seem like a good thing at all. It is a "necessary evil"... something that keeps a character from being as cool as she could be...

 

...BUT if you can start tying END to "cool stuff"... then it starts to seem like a positive character attribute.

 

Your and my pushing rules allows this. Now END seems like a "bonus bit of power" from the player's perspective... if you tied things like Abort or other "special/super actions" to END... then it would seem even better. END would the represents a character's "pool of Extra Effort!" or whatever... rather than a limit on what they can do.

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I'm not talking about having an open action to dodge... I'm talking about the abort... which translates to "in the middle of also attacking or moving, I somehow also twist and contort at the last second to avoid an attack I didn't see coming until the last second!"

 

Yes... this should be really hard to do, IMO. It is fighting aggressively, and then shifting focus and concentration and body in a different direction at the drop of a hat. It doesn't have to be PHYSICALLY exhausting, but it can be mentally taxing... and END can also be a factor in how distracted and discombobulated you are in combat. Taking a Rec isn't just catching your breath... it can be "getting my bearings" as well.

 

Now, maybe 5 END is too much... but I like Treb's X2 idea. Then a Dodge is just 2 END... but throwing up your Force Field (if you actually pay END for it) is double. Minimum 1 END spent at least.

 

I think END... for many folks... doesn't seem like a good thing at all. It is a "necessary evil"... something that keeps a character from being as cool as she could be...

 

...BUT if you can start tying END to "cool stuff"... then it starts to seem like a positive character attribute.

 

Your and my pushing rules allows this. Now END seems like a "bonus bit of power" from the player's perspective... if you tied things like Abort or other "special/super actions" to END... then it would seem even better. END would the represents a character's "pool of Extra Effort!" or whatever... rather than a limit on what they can do.

 

I don't like the idea of making aborting more difficult. Typically, aborting is what you need to do to defend yourself. If you can't abort, holding you phase becomes too much of a metagame excercise. You'd have lots of time to get that sneak attack in inbetween a character's actions, and that doesn't seem appropriate or an accurate simulation of how people act defensively. It's not strenuous at all to suddenly have to duck, toss up an arm to block or dive behind a wall. It's sudden, and it might quicken your pulse a bit, but certainly not more (or as) strenuous as picking up a 1600 lbs. weight (which costs 2 END). At most it should cost only as much END as it would to move your own weight (which for most character is 300 lbs. or less, or 1 END).

[Storn]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It is this aspect... throwing low and medium level attacks to set up for a couple big ones... that I wish Hero did better.

 

There are a couple ways this could be emphasized more... but it is a matter of play style. Many of my players do NOT feel super unless they can throw 14d6 all day long and not worry about END. I wish they could see that 8d6 is their jab... 8d6 is their jab... 14d6 is their round-house knock out punch... but that psychology has never clicked. I got it by allowing 14d6 to be the jab... and pushing to 21d6 is the knockout blast.

 

If.

 

This is a slightly off topic... and I wrote a reply yesterday and then lost power in the middle of it.

 

But it is an important issue. Neil, I think there are five important aspects why we, in your game, go with our main attacks first. Let me state first that I agree it would be nice from a story POV to open up with small attacks as we see in comics.

 

1) Stakes are high because it is NOT a light, fluffy game. We put the bad guys down as fast as we can or they hurt people.

 

2) An 8d6 is NOT a jab. A boxer jab is NOT an attack that is low END, albeit that is part of it. A jab is a DEFENSIVE attack. Defensive strike as a martial manuever is perfect, IMO, of replicating that. Does no extra damage, but gives good DCV bonuses. An 8d6 EB is NOT a defensive attack. It is simply lower powered EB than a 12d6. There is no benefit, besides lower END cost, to voluntarily lowering the attack. Many other games allow for ANY attack to be a defensive strike. And maybe "snap shot" kinda covers it in Hero, but that is sorta a verboten manuever at the superhero level.

 

3) Its REALLY, REALLY hard to kill people in Champions. 14d6 will not kill anyone except the most basic, unarmored normal person. (body of 10, def:3) So players, despite in being protective of lives or even Code vs. Kiling, can throw 14d6 with impunity. No one throws 5d6 killing attacks around with impunity. There is thought beforehand in doing so. {which brings up my pet notion... that most Iron age super attacks are Killing Attacks... and those attacks specifically to stun and incapcitate are Normal... Neural Stunners, Iron Man sonic stunner... but his palm force pulses? Killing attack. It is Champions legacy built around 1975 Comic books (Perez's Avengers) that created the Normal attack}

 

4) Its a perception thing. Since you describe the effect of the blow "villian grunts in pain", we players don't see that the blow took away a 3rd of the stun. We don't see the numbers, like we see getting widdled away on our sheet. Unless the villian is con-stunned (and that is not always apparent from description either), the blow often comes across to the players as "ineffectual". Even if that isn't the case. And I'm not saying that you are wrong to do description and hide the numbers.. I'm just being Player Advocate here. So, we keep pounding at 14d6 or even ramp up the attack.

 

5) Last, but least.... if we did go with smaller attacks, combat would last longer. Combat, IMO, already eats up considerable amount of an evening's session. I'm not sure if I would want it to see it last longer than it already does... and I like roleplaying in combat just fine. But I like the mix of combat and then roleplaying out of combat too.

 

Food for thought, at Vanguard level (our highest exp PCs), I do think you see a "jab" mentality. Often, they face foes with less defenses. Vector doesn't open up with his KA AlVD and squeeze their heart. No. He uses a probe attack of Normal damage. IE, Vector uses his NON lethal attack first...then ramps up to lethal attacks if necessary. And I've often spread attacks with V to not only make sure of the hit, but to lower the damage because I'm not sure of the defenses of the target.

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

2) An 8d6 is NOT a jab. A boxer jab is NOT an attack that is low END' date=' albeit that is part of it. A jab is a DEFENSIVE attack. Defensive strike as a martial manuever is perfect, IMO, of replicating that. Does no extra damage, but gives good DCV bonuses. An 8d6 EB is NOT a defensive attack. It is simply lower powered EB than a 12d6. There is no benefit, besides lower END cost, to voluntarily lowering the attack. Many other games allow for ANY attack to be a defensive strike. And maybe "snap shot" kinda covers it in Hero, but that is sorta a verboten manuever at the superhero level. [/quote']

 

Jut a bit of perception here, but I have a character with a 10d6 Defensive Strike, so to him an 8d6 strike of any kind would seem weak. A 10d6 is a defensive attack. So if this character does 10d6 with a defensive, low powered attack, why is 8d6 arbitrarily marked is being more powerful than defensive strike?

 

It's a matter of scale. 12d6 seems to be a magic number for some people, but there is nothing magic about it. It's just a number that has been used a lot for published character since 1st or 2nd edition. Some campaigns will be designed with more powerful attacks in mind, others with less powerful. But an 8d6 attack most certainly can be a defensive attack, and so can a 15d6 attack, and so can a 4d6... just not all in the same campaign.

[Chromatic]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

. . . . .

 

4) Its a perception thing. Since you describe the effect of the blow "villian grunts in pain", we players don't see that the blow took away a 3rd of the stun. We don't see the numbers, like we see getting widdled away on our sheet. Unless the villian is con-stunned (and that is not always apparent from description either), the blow often comes across to the players as "ineffectual". Even if that isn't the case. And I'm not saying that you are wrong to do description and hide the numbers.. I'm just being Player Advocate here. So, we keep pounding at 14d6 or even ramp up the attack.

 

5) Last, but least.... if we did go with smaller attacks, combat would last longer. Combat, IMO, already eats up considerable amount of an evening's session. I'm not sure if I would want it to see it last longer than it already does... and I like roleplaying in combat just fine. But I like the mix of combat and then roleplaying out of combat too.

 

Food for thought, at Vanguard level (our highest exp PCs), I do think you see a "jab" mentality. Often, they face foes with less defenses. Vector doesn't open up with his KA AlVD and squeeze their heart. No. He uses a probe attack of Normal damage. IE, Vector uses his NON lethal attack first...then ramps up to lethal attacks if necessary. And I've often spread attacks with V to not only make sure of the hit, but to lower the damage because I'm not sure of the defenses of the target.

 

Storn makes the same points I did in the thread on "was 2nd edition End correct".

 

This is I believe the crux of combat in the experienced campaign. Perhaps it has to do with some meta- categorization of levels of gaming experience/desire to get out of the campaign progress.

 

At the early stages players want to just toss dice and do damage. Combat is the end-all, be-all for the game session. This progresses naturally to "power-gamer" mode.

 

Eventually they progress to what I call teen-angst levels, some social interaction is desired, typically introduced in a long term story arc involving a hunted or dnpc or some such.

 

Then the next stage might be the "great experiment" the what if I redo my powers this way? or what happens if I work on getting rid of that annoying girlfriend (or marry that lovely girlfriend) or stop that mob boss for good. And the social ramifications of actions have more effect than the pure combat aspect.

 

Finally, there is the cineramic drama stage. Drama, plotting, and character interaction for the sake of telling a good story with your campaign friends.

 

At these last two stages is where END, at what ever cost you place it becomes an important facet of the game.

 

I look back at the characters and games played when I started Champions (1982ish) and then the kinds of characters I play today. They are very different, and even though I was no novice to rpg's at the time, I still had a way to go in my gaming experience. I shudder to think about how a game session might have progressed if I had been playing the kinds of characters I write up these days when I was in "power-gamer" or teen-angst mode back in college.

 

hmmmm, well this was sort of in topic......

 

rep to you Storn and RDU Neil for getting me to think about this instead of what I'm supposed to be doing.

[Vondy]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Ease of actual play should be the DEFAULT... not something you have to have advanced mechanic knowledge to achieve. END is a great example, as you stated: Default - lots of book keeping and ineffective characters who exhaust themselves... Advanced Version - factor reduced END cost, minimal book keeping, effective characters. Backward from a play experience perspective.

 

 

I've been playing champions/hero since '83 (though I didn't become a die-hard until '89-'90) and I still go out of my way to design characters where tracking endurance is a moot point. END is usually a pain in the bootay - especially when your the GM and have to track multiple characters at one time.