END -- Do You Need It?

[Phil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I submit that heroes that shoot their EB and then rest just doesnt happen in the genre. And wouldnt be real fun to play, either.

 

I have to disagree with this. EB is perhaps the one power where this regularly does happen. E.g. In Death of Superman, the assembled JLA blast Doomsday and one-by-one run out of energy until only Supes is left blasting. Similarly, Authority's Apollo regularly runs out of energy for his EB.

 

However, for the majority of Supes I agree that END is rarely an issue. However, I do see two possible conclusions from this:

1) they dont use END for their abilities

2) they do use END for their abilities, but know their limits and work within them.

 

My view is that END is a good balancing mechanism, and so I like to keep it in. But, while I certainly dont see it as vital, it does have a genre basis for a range of character-types, notably EBers and Mystics.

[Sean Waters]

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']

 

Well (and considering your earlier point) you could say that pushing an attack (which generally costs +10 END) balances well with 'pushing your defence' - aborting - costed at 5 END - the 'defence' is half the cost of the offence' principle applies. In practice you can't throw a puch so powerful you use up 10 times more END than a 'normal' punch, so if you take that tack, the pushing rules are simply not realistic and should't apply...

 

Moreover the Bob the Janitor example is not that helpful: throwing a keyring involves using your arm, dodging involves moving the whole 100kg! In fact you'll be using more energy to dodge than throw. I'm confident Bob could throw more keyrings before running out of energy than he could pull dodges. I keep on going on about boxing matches, but there's a reason there are more blocks than dodges in the later rounds: it is tiring. Of course, blocking is defensive too, but this is a game and we are after balance. Aborting costing you energy seems fair enough to me.

 

Now a normal dodge should, in most cases cost about as much as an attack, and it doesn't - it just costs 1 END. That's not necessarily accurate. Aborted actions, to my mind, are panic reactions by and large - you are having to do something you hadn't expected. There's a cost to be paid for that too: you are pushing yourself.

 

Like I said before though, I was just chucking out ideas. Thinking it through though, it doesn't seem unreasonable in context.

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

After a bit more thought on the matter, I've reached the conclusion that charging larger amounts of END for Aborting is not a good idea. Abort already carries sufficient intrinsic penalties: Loss of next Action, possible loss of DCV if DfC was used, and usually a weaker tactical position. It should still use the normal END for whatever maneuver or Power was used, of course.

 

While it no doubt takes Bob the Janitor more effort to Dive for Cover than to throw his keys, throwing his keys is not going to protect him from a thrown bucket. And we should take care not to conflate ducking with Diving for Cover or an actual Block or Dodge maneuver. Ducking and other evasive behavior is sufficiently covered by the doubled DCV one gets from being in combat; otherwise poor old Bob probably has a DCV of 1. The odds of him successfully executing a DfC or Block is negligible anyway; there's no reason to penalize him further.

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

After a bit more thought on the matter, I've reached the conclusion that charging larger amounts of END for Aborting is not a good idea. Abort already carries sufficient intrinsic penalties: Loss of next Action, possible loss of DCV if DfC was used, and usually a weaker tactical position. It should still use the normal END for whatever maneuver or Power was used, of course.

 

While it no doubt takes Bob the Janitor more effort to Dive for Cover than to throw his keys, throwing his keys is not going to protect him from a thrown bucket. And we should take care not to conflate ducking with Diving for Cover or an actual Block or Dodge maneuver. Ducking and other evasive behavior is sufficiently covered by the doubled DCV one gets from being in combat; otherwise poor old Bob probably has a DCV of 1. The odds of him successfully executing a DfC or Block is negligible anyway; there's no reason to penalize him further.

 

Get it the right way round : you're not losing your next action, you're taking it early, and (with DfC) you may have a lower DCV but you're getting to avoid taking potentially serious damage. Getting to abort isn't a limtiation!

 

Realistically we are not going to be adventuring with Bob: we probably don't really need 'JanitorHERO', worthy as it would doubtless be. Most heroes have enough END to manage several aborts, ut I think this would encourage it to be what it should be (to my mind): a fallback, emergency tactic, not something you rely on. It isn't dodging, blocking, diving for cover or standard ducking we are penalising - it is getting to do it out of turn and thereby overcoming an opponent's otherwise 'dead cert' attack.

 

In a combat where speed is already a substantial advantage, getting to move even faster without penalty does seem, on reflection, odd.

 

Mind you, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate now....

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Get it the right way round : you're not losing your next action, you're taking it early, and (with DfC) you may have a lower DCV but you're getting to avoid taking potentially serious damage. Getting to abort isn't a limtiation!

 

Realistically we are not going to be adventuring with Bob: we probably don't really need 'JanitorHERO', worthy as it would doubtless be. Most heroes have enough END to manage several aborts, ut I think this would encourage it to be what it should be (to my mind): a fallback, emergency tactic, not something you rely on. It isn't dodging, blocking, diving for cover or standard ducking we are penalising - it is getting to do it out of turn and thereby overcoming an opponent's otherwise 'dead cert' attack.

 

In a combat where speed is already a substantial advantage, getting to move even faster without penalty does seem, on reflection, odd.

 

Mind you, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate now....

You may be "taking your Phase early," but you've still blown that next Action for a purely defensive one (one that may not even work) - and of course you can't Abort again until your next Phase is over. Nor can you Abort after you've already acted in a Phase. Nobody ever won a fight by continually Aborting. In a normal Phase a character has the option to Move, Attack, use a Power or Skill, defend, or some combination thereof. Once you've decided to Abort you've lost all but one of those options. I'd say that's sufficient penalty.

 

Mind you, I'm just playing Angel's Advocate now...

[Vondy]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I don't understand the problem with aborting. I really don't. In 22 years of hero experience, I've never found it problematic. What's the deal?

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I don't understand the problem with aborting. I really don't. In 22 years of hero experience' date=' I've never found it problematic. What's the deal?[/quote']In my opinion there isn't one. I've never found it abusive as a GM, nor have I ever abused it as a player. Aborting is fairly rare in our campaign.

 

This is a solution to a non-existent problem.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I don't understand the problem with aborting. I really don't. In 22 years of hero experience' date=' I've never found it problematic. What's the deal?[/quote']

 

It may be more frustrating in the context of Neil's game, where he's done away with the SPD chart. If he's allowing someone to attack one round on Dex 20, then abort on Dex 15 of the same round when they get attacked, I could see it causing problems. Unintended cascade effect of the change.

 

One solution to that would be not allowing someone who's already taken an action that round to abort until the round "resets" at Dex One Bajillion.

[Vondy]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It may be more frustrating in the context of Neil's game, where he's done away with the SPD chart. If he's allowing someone to attack one round on Dex 20, then abort on Dex 15 of the same round when they get attacked, I could see it causing problems. Unintended cascade effect of the change.

 

One solution to that would be not allowing someone who's already taken an action that round to abort until the round "resets" at Dex One Bajillion.

 

Or require them to give up their action in the next round...

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It may be more frustrating in the context of Neil's game, where he's done away with the SPD chart. If he's allowing someone to attack one round on Dex 20, then abort on Dex 15 of the same round when they get attacked, I could see it causing problems. Unintended cascade effect of the change.

 

One solution to that would be not allowing someone who's already taken an action that round to abort until the round "resets" at Dex One Bajillion.

Then the problem lies with the alteration of the rules in that particular campaign and not with the Abort rules as written.

[Vondy]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Then the problem lies with the alteration of the rules in that particular campaign and not with the Abort rules as written.

 

Which renders the point moot. Moving right along...

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Get it the right way round : you're not losing your next action, you're taking it early, and (with DfC) you may have a lower DCV but you're getting to avoid taking potentially serious damage. Getting to abort isn't a limtiation!

 

Realistically we are not going to be adventuring with Bob: we probably don't really need 'JanitorHERO', worthy as it would doubtless be. Most heroes have enough END to manage several aborts, ut I think this would encourage it to be what it should be (to my mind): a fallback, emergency tactic, not something you rely on. It isn't dodging, blocking, diving for cover or standard ducking we are penalising - it is getting to do it out of turn and thereby overcoming an opponent's otherwise 'dead cert' attack.

 

In a combat where speed is already a substantial advantage, getting to move even faster without penalty does seem, on reflection, odd.

 

Mind you, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate now....

 

I can't tell you how much I agree with you. I'd rep you again for this... if I could.

 

Also, Aborting often leaves the character in a BETTER tactical position than before... they have spent 1 END... the attacker has spent 5-10... they blocked and have first attack, etc.

 

So TOTALLY agree with this notion. We'll see if it works out in game play.

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It may be more frustrating in the context of Neil's game, where he's done away with the SPD chart. If he's allowing someone to attack one round on Dex 20, then abort on Dex 15 of the same round when they get attacked, I could see it causing problems. Unintended cascade effect of the change.

 

One solution to that would be not allowing someone who's already taken an action that round to abort until the round "resets" at Dex One Bajillion.

 

Actually... in my system you can only abort if you have a second (or the very rare third) action you haven't used, yet. So you can't abort into the next "initiative round" Since second actions are not guaranteed (unless you have a SPD 10 or better, which is very rare) there are often times you can't abort if you've already acted.

 

I'd say SOMEONE is aborting an action for defense almost every round, in our combats, though... because it is tactical to do so in a group fight. Yes, you've spent an action defensively, but gained a "wasted action" from the opponent... and you got to decide when it happens. Pretty effective ability for no cost.

 

In truth, abort isn't any more or less affective than it used to be with the SPD chart. In the old days, I'd have a character with one better SPD than an opponent, abort to Dodge or Block setting up his his one "free attack" to attack, then abort again. That one extra point of SPD making him practically untouchable by someone only slightly less quick. That was in one-on-one fights... let alone group fights.

 

For all intents and purposes, Abort was never an issue until we started allowing the "abort to turn on a defensive power" crap. When it was only Block, Dodge, DfC it was fine... but if a character can now attack, then abort to Desolid for the counter attack... then go solid and attack and do the same thing over and over... it is just nuts.

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I can't tell you how much I agree with you. I'd rep you again for this... if I could.

 

Also, Aborting often leaves the character in a BETTER tactical position than before... they have spent 1 END... the attacker has spent 5-10... they blocked and have first attack, etc.

 

So TOTALLY agree with this notion. We'll see if it works out in game play.

 

But defending is supposed to be easier than attacker. "Easier" meaning it either costs less in points, is more efficient or is more effective when compared to an attack or attack maneuver. Any agruement that says that any means of defending oneself should be as difficult or more difficult than attacks seems like it argues againsts this basic principle of Hero.

 

Defending, whether or not its aborted to, should be easy to do and cost less END than attacking (well, should cost no more than 1 END).

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

In my opinion there isn't one. I've never found it abusive as a GM, nor have I ever abused it as a player. Aborting is fairly rare in our campaign.

 

This is a solution to a non-existent problem.

 

Maybe you should use aborts more...

 

Let me tell you a story about this guy – and he tells this story himself on another thread running at the moment – one of his first Champions games GMing he had this huge killer monster supposed to keep the players busy for a whole evening. First hit, one of the PCs with a 7d6 KA sword (impressive!) gets lucky and does 190 stun and KOs the monster in, like 3 seconds flat. One of the reasons I don’t like KAs, but that’s for another thread, that’s for sure…

 

Anyway, I was thinking, if PCs are chucking 7d6 KAs around and the monster was supposed to last a while it needed pretty impressive defences. 7d6 KA is a 21DC attack. 21 DC averages around 74 STUN, so I’d imagine this beastie had maybe 60 DEF and about 100 STUN – just guessing, but that would be pretty impressive and allow several good hits before it goes down. The 190, of course was 130 points of STUN through, so instant KO.

 

Mind you, if the GM had thought to, he could have offset the freak damage roll with a roll with punch: it might not have worked, but if it had, the 130 damage through defences would have been cut to 65: the beast would probably have been stunned, but still in the fight…

 

The point I make is that I agree: no one is saying aborting is abusive, but when you do it is normally because you have to, and if that GM had been a little more switched on to the possibilities of aborting, the scenario might have run a whole lot better (I'm just kidding, but I couldn't resist ). Aborting isn’t abusive – but it really is an enormously effective tactic, the effective use of which far outweighs any negatives that come along with it. A few more END is a small price to pay…

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

But defending is supposed to be easier than attacker. "Easier" meaning it either costs less in points, is more efficient or is more effective when compared to an attack or attack maneuver. Any agruement that says that any means of defending oneself should be as difficult or more difficult than attacks seems like it argues againsts this basic principle of Hero.

 

Defending, whether or not its aborted to, should be easy to do and cost less END than attacking (well, should cost no more than 1 END).

 

I'm not sure your analysis takes in the whole picture...OK then, look at it this way: if the attack had hit, what would the consequence be? Heap of stun damage and possibly worse. Losing a few END is NOT anywhere near what the other fella has had to give up (his damage roll on you!), so the defence is still way, way cheaper than the attack in terms of OVERALL cost.

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Maybe you should use aborts more...

 

Let me tell you a story about this guy – and he tells this story himself on another thread running at the moment – one of his first Champions games GMing he had this huge killer monster supposed to keep the players busy for a whole evening. First hit, one of the PCs with a 7d6 KA sword (impressive!) gets lucky and does 190 stun and KOs the monster in, like 3 seconds flat. One of the reasons I don’t like KAs, but that’s for another thread, that’s for sure…

 

Anyway, I was thinking, if PCs are chucking 7d6 KAs around and the monster was supposed to last a while it needed pretty impressive defences. 7d6 KA is a 21DC attack. 21 DC averages around 74 STUN, so I’d imagine this beastie had maybe 60 DEF and about 100 STUN – just guessing, but that would be pretty impressive and allow several good hits before it goes down. The 190, of course was 130 points of STUN through, so instant KO.

 

Mind you, if the GM had thought to, he could have offset the freak damage roll with a roll with punch: it might not have worked, but if it had, the 130 damage through defences would have been cut to 65: the beast would probably have been stunned, but still in the fight…

 

The point I make is that I agree: no one is saying aborting is abusive, but when you do it is normally because you have to, and if that GM had been a little more switched on to the possibilities of aborting, the scenario might have run a whole lot better (I'm just kidding, but I couldn't resist ). Aborting isn’t abusive – but it really is an enormously effective tactic, the effective use of which far outweighs any negatives that come along with it. A few more END is a small price to pay…

It was my story, so let me assure you Abort would have made zero difference in that situation. I had no idea that PCs attack was that big (as I noted, it was my first time to GM Champions even though I had years as a D&D/AD&D DM), and I was quite certain the beast could take any hit. (You were pretty close on the PD and Stun, although IIRC the Stun was a bit higher; probably around 120) The wee beastie wouldn't have tried to Abort. (although the idea of a 200 hundred foot tall radioactive lizard Diving for Cover certainly tickles me).

 

It wasn't a lesson in how useful Abort can be at all; but it was an abject lesson that you never let a player run a character without carefully examining it first. I let a known munchkin player run a brand new character without a once-over, and I (and my pride) paid the price for it. (The 40+ slots in his MP should have been sufficient clue.)

 

We do use Abort in our campaign, but it's not particularly common. Once or twice a game session someone will Abort. So say 3 - 5% of the total actions in a typical given fight are an Abort (Collectively our typical team roster has about 40 Actions per Turn).

[Sean Waters]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

It was my story, so let me assure you Abort would have made zero difference in that situation. I had no idea that PCs attack was that big (as I noted, it was my first time to GM Champions even though I had years as a D&D/AD&D DM), and I was quite certain the beast could take any hit. (You were pretty close on the PD and Stun, although IIRC the Stun was a bit higher; probably around 120) The wee beastie wouldn't have tried to Abort. (although the idea of a 200 hundred foot tall radioactive lizard Diving for Cover certainly tickles me).

 

I know, and I apologise for using it as an example, but sometimes you just can't help yourself, you know?

 

As for the lizard doing a DfC - sounds more like he IS the cover

[RDU Neil]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

Just for the record... and it is ironic... that last night, during the battle, there was only one significant abort... a double abort. One character had to abort to warn another player of an attack (any significant combat effect action, which a warning can be, is at least part of an action in my games) and the other hero had to abort to interpose his body between the attack and the prisoner they were rescuing. The first hero had to abort her first action, which she hadn't taken yet... and the second had to spend a chit to take a defensive action without a second action to use.

 

A critical play... saved a major source of information which was critical... but actually cost what it should... all their actions that turn. (It also cost the villain her one shot on the prisoner as well... which really hurts their plans, in many ways.)

 

So... didn't have to try to impose any new Abort costs - END rules in this case.

[prestidigitator]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I like Aborts. What's the big deal? NPCs can Abort too, you know. Mine may even Abort more often than the PCs, in fact. Depends. I don't think Aborting is all that advantageous; any time you are on the defensive it is not a good sign.

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I like Aborts. What's the big deal? NPCs can Abort too' date=' you know. Mine may even Abort more often than the PCs, in fact. Depends. I don't think Aborting is all that advantageous; any time you are on the defensive it is not a good sign.[/quote']That, of course, is the central flaw with the "Abort is too good" argument: The bad guys can use it too. And if everyone can do it, any balance problems disappear.

[prestidigitator]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

That' date=' of course, is the central flaw with the "Abort is too good" argument: The bad guys can use it too. And if everyone can do it, any balance problems disappear.[/quote']

...especially as no one needs to spend any points to be able to do it. Literally anyone can do it (though it is true certain defensive Powers could make it more lucrative). In fact, everyone and their monkey can do it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

I'm not sure your analysis takes in the whole picture...OK then' date=' look at it this way: if the attack had hit, what would the consequence be? Heap of stun damage and possibly worse. Losing a few END is NOT anywhere near what the other fella has had to give up (his damage roll on you!), so the defence is still way, way cheaper than the attack in terms of OVERALL cost. [/quote']

I'm pretty sure my analysis takes in the whole picture. You can't get more whole picture than the metarules behind the game structure.

 

You shouldn't compare the cost of being hit to being missed and then say that being missed costs you something. It's like rewarding a character (with no massive END loss) for just standing there are getting lucky. Or rewarding the character who's bought up DCV instead of dodging or blocking. That doesn't sound fair. Besides, if you are going to take a 5-10 END lose for aborting, who would ever do it? Ever? I sure wouldn't. I'd rather take my chances with the attack, because it could still miss! Suddenly it's more tactically sound to just hand around and hope you don't get hit instead of trying to actively avoid harm, which doesn't make any sense.

[Dust Raven]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

That' date=' of course, is the central flaw with the "Abort is too good" argument: The bad guys can use it too. And if everyone can do it, any balance problems disappear.[/quote']

 

And it's why normals seems to just stand there without getting hit. It's because one out of five times they've got partial cover and they are darting around like a crazed weasle (basically, Dodging). It's why they don't run away. You can't run away while aborting to dodge, but they don't fall unconscious either. With an averave of 20 STUN & END, they shouldn't last more than 1 or 2 turns, 4 at most before knocking themselves out by doing epileptic jumping jacks. I've just never seen that in any show or movie. Are they tired? Yes. Do they every need to stop for rest or pass out? No.

[Trebuchet]

Re: END -- Do You Need It?

 

...especially as no one needs to spend any points to be able to do it. Literally anyone can do it (though it is true certain defensive Powers could make it more lucrative). In fact' date=' everyone and their [i']monkey[/i] can do it.

Yes, but not their pet garden slug. So it's patently unfair to terrestrial molluscs.

 

Obviously, in light of this discovery, the Abort rules must be completely rewritten to accommodate slugs and snails. And I'll bet turtles will want in on it too.