What if END was "Super!"

[RDU Neil]

Ok... another braindump here, as a number of threads about END have kept my brain percolating. This is something of a Mechanics level change, blurred with Game Rule level/genre emulation... so bear with me.

 

END - Currently a regulator for characters, in both game play and character creation elements of Hero. Buy a character with just basic powers, END cost will limit their effectiveness and becomes a book keeping PITA (pain in the a$$). If you have a level of Hero savvy, you know to buy many powers like movement and defenses to reduced or zero END, which regulates where you spend points in character creation.

 

Result - while it is useful to see END as a game regulator, it is not really a dynamic ADDITION to a character... more like a necessary evil that is a level of complication to newer players, and a demoralizing PITA for many others.

 

So what if we changed what END means. Again, I'm just spewing an idea that popped into my head so there are likely balance issues and other errors. Again, just bear with me.

 

It can be a pain to have to track every END for just moving across the battlefield, swinging your sword, even a basic force field cost. What if END was just for "SUPER" effort... rather than to track a cost for every effort, mundane or super. What if END was a pool of points that would be needed in order to perform "extra ordinary maneuvers" of a sort. This is based off the already canon concept of Pushing... just taking it to the next level.

 

There are certain things a character can do that can be much more effective in a stressful situation, but we don't want them using such maneuvers all the time. i.e. there needs to be a govenor for how often this can happen. If END is no longer a way to track mundane effort, it can become a pool of super effort points.

 

Super Actions can be things like:

• Pushing - up to half the active points of the power

• Aborting - to make this a special effort rather than a guaranteed fail safe

• Change Norm Attack to KA - same active points... but concentrating, focusing

• Add an Advantage - like explosion or AE, at one END for one AP added

and the big one...

• To track powers above the Campaign Limits (DC, AP, whatever)
  

 

Now... you can debate what should be a super action or not... but one of the stickiest arguments is "what is a Super Action when the character already is doing things like lifting cars and shooting Energy Blasts?"

 

Good question... so the idea finally came to me. Shooting an EB is NOT a Super Action, unless is exceeds the DC (or AP) campaign limits.

 

See, this takes the idea of Campaign Limits, and instead of just being an arbitrary govenor of character balance, it becomes something that has a game play/mechanic effect.

 

Now, powers that fit within Campaign Limits are "automatically" Zero End (for all intents and purposes) but powers that exceed them cost END as normal because they are "super" compared to other super abilities. (Or they could just cost END for the AP over the limit... that is certainly an option.)

 

Now, with DC limits of, say 10DC, all 10d6 EBs are Zero END... but if they want to be "Big Blast Guy" they can, but their 15d6 blast is costing 7.5 END a shot like normal (unless they buy Reduced END, but that's ok.) Heck, you could even return to 1 End per 5 Points under this rule, because it is only affecting those that choose to exceed campaign limits.

 

What this would do is drive characters in a "broadening" direction, rather than focusing on the one big attack. It doesn't FORCE compliance with Campaign lims... forcing what is often seen as GM arbitrariness... just encourages it.

 

Now, clearly I'm thinking of things in terms of superheroic levels, but that is where I've seen the issue come up. Tracking END in a gritty Fantasy campaign often seems like part of the genre, but in supers the application, if not the concept, often seems to be "un-fun" at best. This would address that issue... saying that "Up to Campaign Limits for Supers" you don't have to worry about END... instead it is there for your "really big attacks" and also allows you to do "Super Actions" above and beyond what is on your sheet.

 

Yes, I know this breaks the "you can't do it if you didn't pay for it" concept of Hero... but I think it works to keep the game balanced, and actually simplifies things as well. END actually becomes something a player may CHOOSE to invest in, because it opens up variability and effectiveness... rather than being a sink for points just to be able to make it through a couple rounds of combat without passing out.

 

So... unleash the hounds... tear it apart... tell me what you think.

[Trebuchet]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

I'll want to cogitate on it a bit, but at first glance it looks good, Neil.

 

And "Costs END" could then become a -¼ Limitation for any Power. (I don't want to get rid of its availability entirely, because for some character concepts END use may be considered essential.)

 

One thing we'll want to consider is that if we use this method do we still want END to equal CON X2? Or just equal CON?

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Some of it's easy enough to work in. Just give everyone Xpts, only useable to make abilities within campaign limits 0 End. Down the road, if they buy a new ability within campaign limits, give them the extra points to make it 0 end free. Just be careful with re-writes, that these extra points don't go to more nefarious ends...

[RDU Neil]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

I'll want to cogitate on it a bit, but at first glance it looks good, Neil.

 

And "Costs END" could then become a -¼ Limitation for any Power. (I don't want to get rid of its availability entirely, because for some character concepts END use may be considered essential.)

 

Hey, yes... thanks for saying this... I'd thought the same thing, but forgot to write it down. "Any power at or below Campaing Limits"

 

One thing we'll want to consider is that if we use this method do we still want END to equal CON X2? Or just equal CON?

 

True... or the other bit would be to make END cost 1 for 1. Either down stream cost adjustment might be necessary... or not. Good point.

[Force]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Lot's of good ideas, but...

 

It creates almost as many complications as it tries to simplify.

 

What about the 'costs end' limitation? 'Increased end' limitation? Reduced or zero end advantage? Autofire? Other advantages? What about the cost of end batteries? How much does recovery and end cost now? Should you change the calculation of the end figured characteristic? Recovery? Does Con still cost 2 per? Should this affect on how you take recoveries?

 

Granted, all of this would take place in character creation, but it would make a complicated process even more complicated.

 

However, once done it would no longer require as much record keeping during a gaming session.

 

Is it even worth the trouble?

[Fox1]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

I like things as they are and don't see a reason to change.

[RDU Neil]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Lot's of good ideas, but...

 

It creates almost as many complications as it tries to simplify.

 

I dunno if they are complications as much as looking at things differently...

 

What about the 'costs end' limitation? 'Increased end' limitation?

 

To me, this stuff starts to make MORE sense. Instead of having an END-suck character as the default, and have to spend points to simplify the character in play... now you start with a default simple Zero END character, and can buy "Costs END" if you want to complicate things to save some points. That is more in line with how game design should work. Start simple, and add layers of complication/depth only if you choose to... not force players to gain depth of knowledge in order to accomplish ease of play.

 

Reduced or zero end advantage?

 

So you basically don't have to use them... or if you do, they stay they same (because you'd buy them for powers over the Campaign limits) I don't see an issue.

 

Autofire? Other advantages?

 

Not sure why these would be an issue.

 

What about the cost of end batteries?

END Batteries already a munchkin tool badly broken. Shouldn't affect this consideration.

 

How much does recovery and end cost now?

Good question, and I think that the only change MIGHT be END would cost 1 for 1.

 

Should you change the calculation of the end figured characteristic? Recovery? Does Con still cost 2 per? Should this affect on how you take recoveries?

 

IMO... No, No, Yes, No

 

SNIP

 

Is it even worth the trouble?

 

Perhaps... it is just an idea. I'm not telling people they have to do this... but I do think it addresses some important concerns with actual Play Experience at the supers end (no pun intended ) of things.

[Labrat]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

When was the last time someone mentioned using 'STN' for both Stun and END purposes? The more winded you get, the easier you go down...

 

It's-a half-a baked-a idea! (my Italian is a bit rough)

 

I always thought that would work well, make sense, simplify and keep power gamers in check...

[RDU Neil]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

When was the last time someone mentioned using 'STN' for both Stun and END purposes? The more winded you get, the easier you go down...

 

It's-a half-a baked-a idea! (my Italian is a bit rough)

 

I always thought that would work well, make sense, simplify and keep power gamers in check...

 

Actually thought about this as well... but I felt it had more complications in terms of people HAVING to stop and recover all the time... which is one of the big complaints I'm trying to address here.

 

I'm not against simplifying the number of Stats... just that combining Stun and END will likely have fundamental Mechanic level changes required. My system, while really pushing folks to look at END from a different perspective, would not really (I don't think) require major changes down stream.

 

It might, but that is what this thread is here to determine.

[MitchellS]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

We played for a while with a rule that each phase you used a power cost 1 end and that pushing used normal pushing end. The catch was that the endurance only recovered at a rate of 1 recovery per 2 hours of rest [so 4 recoveries in 8 hours of sleep]. This allowed us to have the big superhero-style battles without extensive book keeping but still left the characters needing to deal with the levels of exhaustion which followed. Reduced endurance was not allowed and increased endurance was purchased as a disadvantage.

[RDU Neil]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

We played for a while with a rule that each phase you used a power cost 1 end and that pushing used normal pushing end. The catch was that the endurance only recovered at a rate of 1 recovery per 2 hours of rest [so 4 recoveries in 8 hours of sleep]. This allowed us to have the big superhero-style battles without extensive book keeping but still left the characters needing to deal with the levels of exhaustion which followed. Reduced endurance was not allowed and increased endurance was purchased as a disadvantage.

 

That is certainly another way to look at it. Might have some balance issues... as a 15d6 blast and a 8d6 blast both only cost 1 END... but might not be an issue in actual play.

 

Cool.

 

With your idea, I realize my idea is trying to do two things at once... resolve an END play issue AND to make END something "kewl" that is a dynamic part of the character (allowing the Super Actions).

[MitchellS]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

That is certainly another way to look at it. Might have some balance issues... as a 15d6 blast and a 8d6 blast both only cost 1 END... but might not be an issue in actual play.

 

Cool.

 

With your idea, I realize my iea is trying to do two things at once... resolve an END play issue AND to make END something "kewl" that is a dynamic part of the character (allowing the Super Actions).

Sorry, that was my poor descriptive writing. Each phase you used a power cost 1 end. The phase cost 1 end, not each power. So if you had a 6 speed then you used 6 end that turn.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RDU Neil again.

 

Will comment more if I can come up with something worthwhile!

[Hyper-Man]

Re: What if END was "Hyper!"

 

An idea worthy of consideration!

 

HM

[RDU Neil]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Sorry' date=' that was my poor descriptive writing. Each phase you used a power cost 1 end. The phase cost 1 end, not each power. So if you had a 6 speed then you used 6 end that turn.[/quote']

 

Gotcha. Interesting, in that pushing could get REALLY dangerous. Kinda the opposite of what I'm trying to do, which is encourage pushing and END spending for Super Actions... but I like the medium/long term ramifications... and I really like how simple it is.

 

I'll have to think about this a bit more.

[Storn]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Its a pretty cool idea Neil.

 

But for RDU I would suggest the cap being 12d6 as opposed to 10d6. Just because 10d6 will not do much to anyone at Mavericks level and above. Sure, it works fine at Dark champs level (Malta).

 

Let me ask this, could SUPERend expenditure equal a blue chit? I think you are getting to that....but I want to hear more thoughts on this. Maybe to keep it simple, say a flat 30 END to equal a blue chit (or 40/ 50, what have you). For those who don't know, a blue chit is the equivalent to a Hero Point in M&M in some respects. Allows us to modify a power on the fly, with a reasonable persuasive arguement, to do something that isn't on our character sheet. Maser modulates his radiation blast to affect Desolid to hit the mind controled desolid Geist.

 

Here's an add'l wrinkle for thought. Maybe END can fufill the function of how much Active Pts can be tossed around w/o cost? So Maser, who's END is 80, can toss around 80 active pts. Vector's, who's is 66, could toss around 65 (or 66) for free. But that might be too heinous. Most PCs, (just glanced at several) are around 50-60. It keeps END on the sheet and important. And it would make world shaking villians who fire tons of raw power a snap. But maybe END is just too cheap for this. But it would stop folks from buying END down who would benefit from it (Martial Artists).

 

I do like the idea that Martial artists are bouncing around and we don't have to keep track of every punch, kick (most of which fall in the 12 to 8 DC catagory). I like the idea that villians can toss aorund power and we don't REALLY have to even worry about their END as the players are kinda off the hook too.

 

And maybe to keep it simpler, and cheaper to throw power around, say 12DC is the END cap. Just subtract the 12 from the higher powered attack. So Coal's 18 DC -12 = 6 END. If Coal pushes beyond his normal 18DC personal limit as per our Pushing rules, then 1 END per active pt still works. I personally like that rule in place because it is a big decision to push and it should eat a lot of END, especially IF we reduce average/general END costs down.

 

If we did make END cheaper in this way, I would suggest that GM has the caveat to impose END costs for long battles... any battle that goes 10 minutes or longer, even if folks are using small attacks, -20 END or something would be completely within reason. Not many battles in RDU do go beyond 10 minutes...although our UNITE team has been fighting many, many battles over a few days. But we've roleplayed the exhaustion up more than any mechanic has been inforced upon us.

[JmOz]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Interesting, very interesting, I am enjoying the thoughts of everyone on this thread imensly, thank you for a good read

 

I have no comments on this as of yet...Then again my character is a charge whore...

[RDU Neil]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Its a pretty cool idea Neil.

 

But for RDU I would suggest the cap being 12d6 as opposed to 10d6. Just because 10d6 will not do much to anyone at Mavericks level and above. Sure, it works fine at Dark champs level (Malta).

 

10d6 was just an example... I haven't decided whether to try and implement this or not. It does raise the question, is there a Campaign limit for overall RDU... or is there one per sub-campaign... as Malta, the Dragons, and the Mavericks aren't on the scale of Vanguard or UNITE: Team Cyprus. An overall RDU campaign limit would have to be lower than one's tweaked for each sub-campaign... but it would make characters interchangeable for cross-overs and such.

 

Hmmmm... just off the top of my head... what would happen if we set Campaign DC Limits based on Total character Points. 300 point characters are 6d6, 350 point characters are 7d6, 600 point characters are 12d6. Essentially... the more points Total in your character, the more "base zero END" damage you can do. This has kinda a nice flow to it, but I'm only thinking it up as I type... may be flawed.

 

Let me ask this, could SUPERend expenditure equal a blue chit? I think you are getting to that....but I want to hear more thoughts on this. Maybe to keep it simple, say a flat 30 END to equal a blue chit (or 40/ 50, what have you). For those who don't know, a blue chit is the equivalent to a Hero Point in M&M in some respects. Allows us to modify a power on the fly, with a reasonable persuasive arguement, to do something that isn't on our character sheet. Maser modulates his radiation blast to affect Desolid to hit the mind controled desolid Geist.

 

This basic concept was there... but I think using END for Super Actions would be more limited than Blue Chits, because it is more controlled by the players. You have a set ability to then do Super Actions, whereas chits right now are a very limited resource that don't "recover" which is a great controller for such mechanics.

 

Here's an add'l wrinkle for thought. Maybe END can fufill the function of how much Active Pts can be tossed around w/o cost? So Maser, who's END is 80, can toss around 80 active pts. Vector's, who's is 66, could toss around 65 (or 66) for free. But that might be too heinous. Most PCs, (just glanced at several) are around 50-60. It keeps END on the sheet and important. And it would make world shaking villians who fire tons of raw power a snap. But maybe END is just too cheap for this. But it would stop folks from buying END down who would benefit from it (Martial Artists).

 

I do think END would be too cheap at 2 for 1 for this... but it is a cool idea. Essentially buy END in Five Point increments to establish your baseline "easy" for the character. This might really effect CON cost or Recovery... that kind of thing, since it is a static characteristic now, not really a figured one... but it is definitely worth looking at.

 

I do like the idea that Martial artists are bouncing around and we don't have to keep track of every punch, kick (most of which fall in the 12 to 8 DC catagory). I like the idea that villians can toss aorund power and we don't REALLY have to even worry about their END as the players are kinda off the hook too.

 

Just FYI... not only was Durak going down quickly in stun because of Coal's heat attack... but his END was down to about 25 from 100, when he went down. This Durak clone is not a smart, or efficient fighter. If the fight had gone a round longer, it was likely he was going to have to stop and gasp for breath, and I was planning on that. Sometimes END can be a players friend!

 

And maybe to keep it simpler, and cheaper to throw power around, say 12DC is the END cap. Just subtract the 12 from the higher powered attack. So Coal's 18 DC -12 = 6 END. If Coal pushes beyond his normal 18DC personal limit as per our Pushing rules, then 1 END per active pt still works. I personally like that rule in place because it is a big decision to push and it should eat a lot of END, especially IF we reduce average/general END costs down.

 

This was a suggestiong I stuck in the first thread. Either powers over the Campaign Limits pay full END for it all... or they only pay END for the amount OVER the limits. If we go with the latter, which is a lot less END expended regularly... then I'd really be leaning toward raising END cost to 1 for 1. Still hypothetical, but that would be my initial try at this.

 

If we did make END cheaper in this way, I would suggest that GM has the caveat to impose END costs for long battles... any battle that goes 10 minutes or longer, even if folks are using small attacks, -20 END or something would be completely within reason. Not many battles in RDU do go beyond 10 minutes...although our UNITE team has been fighting many, many battles over a few days. But we've roleplayed the exhaustion up more than any mechanic has been inforced upon us.

 

Actually this comes into my idea about Long Term Exhaustion, which I posted on another thread. Still... what about the idea that if you do a Super Action (especially our Push rules) you don't recover fully. You are -10 END from your starting amount, until you get a good bit of rest. That way END might cost the same (2 for 1) but the big cost comes when you use it for Super Actions you aren't going to be able to quick recover it back.

 

This is adding a level of complexity... but a level chosen by the player, not one required by the game. A player can go for many adventures and play their characters straight, without a Super Action, and never have to worry about END... but then they don't get to do as many super-kewl, splash page type actions.

 

hmmmm... definitely more to think about, but I'm liking this a lot.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Since you already have the chit mechanic in your game, you could just add an "END" chit to the mix, and ignore the stat itself.

 

Give everyone a # of them based on their Con and other factors. When someone makes a big "push", they have to spend a chit. If the GM feels they've been going non-stop for a while, they spend a chit. Get a chit back for significant rest, etc.

 

Could even scale it so a normal 10AP push is one chit, full 50% is two, or say 1 chit=10AP, can spend up to +50%. When you run out of chits, you're exhausted and will have penalties. If you use a power or are called upon to spend another chit (extended time awake, etc), you pass out. Easy to simulate illness, etc. ("You've got a cold - lose an END chit")

[Storn]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

what about the idea that if you do a Super Action (especially our Push rules) you don't recover fully. You are -10 END from your starting amount, until you get a good bit of rest. That way END might cost the same (2 for 1) but the big cost comes when you use it for Super Actions you aren't going to be able to quick recover it back.

 

I like.

 

Just a possible other solution. Hit the REC. Every Super Action means that your REC goes down by 2 or 3. Not only does this hit us in the END catogory, but really hits us in the STUN REC wheelhouse. Makes the cost of SUPERmoves a bit more costly.

 

what would happen if we set Campaign DC Limits based on Total character Points. 300 point characters are 6d6, 350 point characters are 7d6, 600 point characters are 12d6

 

This I don't like. It stress the differences in point levels too much. Something that is nice about crossovers is that a 300 pt character can stand next to a 400 pt character just fine in the right circumstances. But this artificially widens the divide. And remember, there are only 3 PCs over 600... and at their level, 12d6 is not going to be used as often as 14d6...so it is almost extra complixity that won't really be used (except in taking on agents and mooks and lowered ability foes). We'll just be throwing our attacks around as per usual. Durak is barely going to feel 12d6. Adn that is the level of foe we often face in Vanguard.

 

The caveat to the above is if the difference happens between the cap and the power level... a 14d6 costs 2 END... but then we are still doing bookkeeping... we've just made END less of a combat issue. Isn't the aim to minimize END bookkeeping and its really only for SUPERpowered attempts?

 

And maybe NOT allow advantage manipulation of powers except with blue chit. That keeps it simpler and we are all used to this already. I do like the idea of being able to switch a EB to a killing attack if SFX warrants... but that opens up the can of worms... can a Martial ARtist with a Off Strike of 12d6 unload with a 4d6 HKA?

[Force]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Here's an add'l wrinkle for thought. Maybe END can fufill the function of how much Active Pts can be tossed around w/o cost? So Maser, who's END is 80, can toss around 80 active pts. Vector's, who's is 66, could toss around 65 (or 66) for free. But that might be too heinous. Most PCs, (just glanced at several) are around 50-60. It keeps END on the sheet and important. And it would make world shaking villians who fire tons of raw power a snap. But maybe END is just too cheap for this. But it would stop folks from buying END down who would benefit from it (Martial Artists).

 

This is a very interesting idea. Whatever your end is determines how many active points you can use for free.

 

So you have a character with 60 end. He can use up to a 60pt active power for free. Later in the turn he pushes, using up 10 end and leaving 50. He can now only use a 50pt active power for free. This would reflect the more he pushes the less power he can throw around for free.

[Storn]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

This is a very interesting idea. Whatever your end is determines how many active points you can use for free.

 

So you have a character with 60 end. He can use up to a 60pt active power for free. Later in the turn he pushes, using up 10 end and leaving 50. He can now only use a 50pt active power for free. This would reflect the more he pushes the less power he can throw around for free.

 

Wow. Force, that is elegant. I like!

 

However, Neil, if we do play around with this, many characters are going to go through re-writes.... what use is 0 END on a force field or flight (the 2 most common, IMO, powers that have 0 END) if the active pts are below the END.

 

Except, I jsut answered my own question... there still is advantage with the "Force model". Vector has 65 END, he can throw around 13d6 all day. His flight is, say, 50 active pts. Two SUPERmoves, and he can only do 40 active pts for free... his flight has the 0 END advantage and still works at 0 END.

 

I still think we will see rewrites as folks spend pts on getting their END up high to equal their largest attacks.

[Force]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Wow. Force, that is elegant. I like!

 

However, Neil, if we do play around with this, many characters are going to go through re-writes.... what use is 0 END on a force field or flight (the 2 most common, IMO, powers that have 0 END) if the active pts are below the END.

 

Except, I jsut answered my own question... there still is advantage with the "Force model". Vector has 65 END, he can throw around 13d6 all day. His flight is, say, 50 active pts. Two SUPERmoves, and he can only do 40 active pts for free... his flight has the 0 END advantage and still works at 0 END.

 

I still think we will see rewrites as folks spend pts on getting their END up high to equal their largest attacks.

 

Thanks! I was going to post something even more complicated, but simplicity is the order of the day in this thread.

 

I just don't know if you need to mess around with 'long term end' or how the recovery of end is done using this idea.

[Storn]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Force, off the top of my head, I don't know if you need Long Term End with your idea. If I use 20 END to do my SUPERmove, and my END goes to 40... it can be 40 until I get a chance to rest. We don't have to do REC except for STUN and that is an action under our rules... that bookkeeping is easy.

 

So the Long term END can be just quickly assigned by the GM,"you've been on a 8 hour patrol, everyone is a bit cranky and tired, -5 END" Essentially saying, you are -5 active pts from any "free END power". I think this would is easy, temporary and not a pain to bookkeep.

[RDU Neil]

Re: What if END was "Super!"

 

Wow. Force, that is elegant. I like!

 

However, Neil, if we do play around with this, many characters are going to go through re-writes.... what use is 0 END on a force field or flight (the 2 most common, IMO, powers that have 0 END) if the active pts are below the END.

 

Except, I jsut answered my own question... there still is advantage with the "Force model". Vector has 65 END, he can throw around 13d6 all day. His flight is, say, 50 active pts. Two SUPERmoves, and he can only do 40 active pts for free... his flight has the 0 END advantage and still works at 0 END.

 

I still think we will see rewrites as folks spend pts on getting their END up high to equal their largest attacks.

 

 

Issue is that it is still book keeping. It isn't bad book keeping, but it does still require extra addition and subtraction... nothing more than now... just different.

 

To this point, I do think we need to tie it to Campaign Limits and such.

 

Here is why. Campaign limits (which I'm thinking would be taylored to each sub-campaign) are basically saying, "Stay within these limits, and you don't have to worry about END at all, except for Super Actions." Zero book keeping. Then, if a player CHOOSES to go beyond those campaign limitations, they are choosing to complicate game play for themselves because now they have to track END. This should be fine for High Powered/High Point characters, because they can spend points to buy Zero END on things above the Campaign Limits if they don't want to bother with that stuff... but it allows lower point level, lower power level... STARTING characters, to not have to worry about END unless they want to (buying Costs END to save some points.)

 

Also... the further we divorce END from what it does now, the more likely we are to have to change it's cost... change the cost of CON maybe... change the cost of Recovery, etc. I'd rather avoid such cascade changes, if we do use it.