Costs END Only to Activate

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

It's also quite in genre, especially when taken as Costs END to Activate AND Deactivate. We've seen good ol' Hank Pym have this problem constantly throughout his sizechanging career. This is one of those rare rules that I'm proud to say I came up with independently many years ago. I was glad to see many others on the same page. As to cost, well, others have already stated the defense in that case.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Costs END to activate is not point balanced - it costs the same as half END. If the power costs 4 END, CEOTA would cost 4 END once, whereas half END would cost 2 each phase. After 2 phases theEND cost would be the same and threafter CEOTA has it beat hands down. Given that such powers tend o get activated at the start of combat and left on throughout it really does not balance well.

 

Try this: CEOTA (+1/4)costs 3* times as much END, so in the above example it would cost 12 END to activate and nothing thereafter (or the END cost would balance with 1/2 END after 6 phases. You cannot use the increased END limitation with this one but you CAN make it persistent. For a +0 you can have the advanatage as above but it costs twice as uch again to activate (24 in the above example)

 

 

 

*or 2, or 4, or 5, or whatever balances well for you.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Costs END to activate is not point balanced - it costs the same as half END.

So what?

 

I repeat... Advantages do not need to be "balanced" against each other. They just need to...

1. Be worth more than the most comparable next-lower-value Advantage (if there is one), and...
2. Be worth less than the most comparable next-higher-value Advantage.

In the case of "Costs END Only To Activate," that means it has to be worth more than costing END all the time (the +/-0 level), and worth less than not costing END at all (the +1/2 level). And so it is.

 

Whether it is worth more or less than some other END-related +1/4 Advantage is totally irrelevant. "Half END Cost" is a +1/4 Advantage for the exact same reasons as "Costs END Only to Activate" (it's better than full END, not as good as no END). The fact that CEOTA happens to be more useful on Constant Powers than Half END Cost is, frankly doesn't matter. What're you gonna do... make it a +3/5 Advantage or something?

[Zed-F]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Regarding the phase-12 recovery issue:

It's worth recalling that you can't just discount the effect of 'Costs END to Activate' on the basis of a post-12 recovery in general. That ignores the possibility (even likelihood) that the character will also be spending END for other powers and actions, to the point where it is quite possible that he will exceed his REC in END expenditures.

 

Costs END to activate is more efficient for powers that you expect to be up for more than two phases, and exactly as efficient for powers that you expect to be up exactly two phases. It is less efficient for powers that are up for only one phase. In non-combat time, it's guaranteed to be more efficient. In combat time, how efficient it is depends on the frequency of voluntary power activation/deactivation AND on the frequency of being Stunned.

 

I would say it's a valid advantage for Body-Affecting powers, and not otherwise.

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Many many thanks to all who have responded! I really appreciate your thoughts and respect your opinions. I especially appreciate this list of similarly "value challenged" Advantages from Hugh:

Difficult to Dispel' date=' Personal Immunity, Hardened, 32 charges,Delayed Effect, Time Delay, Does Knockback, 1st tier Indirect, IPE to Hearing or 2-3 shot autofire.[/quote']

In my opinion the instructive examples provided by lots of folks show that Costs END Only to Activate falls somewhere between the +1/4 Advantage 1/2 END and the +1/2 Advantage 0 END. I don't see a perfect way out of this situation, but I suppose we can follow standard HERO rounding conventions:

Advantage worth more than 0 and up to 1/8 = +0

Advantage worth more than 1/8 up to 3/8 = +1/4

Advantage worth more than 3/8 up to 5/8 = +1/2

etc

 

In my opnion, Costs END Only to Activate is worth more than 3/8 so I will price it at +1/2 in my campaigns. I fully understand that it is less valuable than 0 END, but I do not think that should automatically put it at +1/4.

 

I will warmly welcome players who -- because they think it is appropriate for their character -- opt to take Costs END Only to Activate at +1/2 even though they could take 0 END for the same +1/2. I will certainly look for ways to reward them for the choice.

 

Once again, thanks to all who replied to this one!

 

Perhaps in the future HERO will change to a system whereby more options are avialble for valuing Advantages and Limitations.

[mikesama]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Snapdragon my Shapeshifting martial artist would have to pay about 30 end per turn to run her shapeshift, but it does require her to exert herself to make the change. So the +1/4 (Costs END Only to Activate) advantage is about right. As far as things like density increase and growth go there are lots of problem that go with using these powers that can offset the lack of end cost. I remmeber a GM who had 5 VIPER agents all make called shots on a character with several levels of growth and have them all hit, it was really kinda funny what happened to the guy (BTW the guy was a giant robot suit bought with growth and a bunchof other stuff who lost his Primary movement power, primary offensive system and his radar.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Perhaps in the future HERO will change to a system whereby more options are avialble for valuing Advantages and Limitations.

 

Well, we could go to 1/8 ths as your post alludes to. We could go to 10ths for a metric feel. Maybe we could rate each limitation on a percentage basis and subtract that percentage cost from the power.

 

This wouldn't exactly help against detractors cho complain Hero is over-math'ed, but such is life.

 

In the meantime, I'd probably buy my power 0 END, with a -1/4 Side Effect that drains some END when I activate the power. [60 x 1.25 = 75; 60 x 1.5/1.25 = 72 - close enough]

[austenandrews]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I think a reasonable construct, in character for many genres, is Costs END To Activate plus Increased END. So t's exhausting to turn on the power/cast the spell/what-have-you, but once it's going, no further effort is required.

[Tiree]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

In my opinion' date=' it is altogether [i']too [/i]useful for that sort of thing. I can't imagine Iceman having to spend the END for his Armor more than once per Turn. In my opinion, that's a +1/2 Advantage.

 

 

OK, the Increased END Cost might actually make a difference in a combat situation. I can see that. But only at high END costs. Otherwise I imagine the power would be activated on Phase 12 and the END immediately covered by the Post Segment 12 Recovery in most cases.

 

For Armor CEOTA is very useful, but also a Bane. It makes this 0 END Persistent power, cost endurance and non-persistent.

 

So when you have a character who has built up an Armor Defense gets knocked out, their armor drops. I currently have a character who is like that, and that is my worst fear - have this character stunned, armor drops and Secret ID exposed.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

So what?

 

I repeat... Advantages do not need to be "balanced" against each other. They just need to...

1. Be worth morethan the most comparable next-lower-value Advantage (if there is one), and...
2. Be worth less than the most comparable next-higher-value Advantage.

In the case of "Costs END Only To Activate," that means it has to be worth more than costing END all the time (the +/-0 level), and worth less than not costing END at all (the +1/2 level). And so it is.

 

Whether it is worth more or less than some other END-related +1/4 Advantage is totally irrelevant. "Half END Cost" is a +1/4 Advantage for the exact same reasons as "Costs END Only to Activate" (it's better than full END, not as good as no END). The fact that CEOTA happens to be more useful on Constant Powers than Half END Cost is, frankly doesn't matter. What're you gonna do... make it a +3/5 Advantage or something?

 

I don't think CEOTA is worth 'just' a +1/4: I'd say it is much closer to the +1/2 level.

 

Whilst I agree that you will never acheive perfect balance, I do believe that it is perfectly valid to compare similar advantages at similar costs to estimate net utility. That is where the points balancing comes in. Half END is a very similar sort of advantage and at a similar cost, so it is a valid comparision, as is 0 END.

 

Or, think of it this way. A 60 point power costs 6 END to activate. Most superheroes have 40+ END, and, frankly, given that most powers like this will activate on the first seg 12 and be followed by a PS12 the actual loss is never likely to be really felt. If, in effect, it is going to have no real impact on your END use, it should be costed like 0 END. You can save a point by limiting 6 points of END (not useable whilst shapeshifted -1/2).

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

For Armor CEOTA is very useful' date=' but also a Bane. It makes this 0 END Persistent power, cost endurance and non-persistent.[/quote']

So why not just take CEOTA on Force Field instead? That would seem a more appropriate route than making Armor Cost END Only To Activate...

[Dr.Device]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Another factor to consider:

You can't take recoveries (other than post segment 12) while maintaining a non-persistent power.

For a 0 END power, you drop the power, take a recovery, put the power back up at no cost. For a CEOTA power, you drop the power, take a recovery, pay the endurance cost again to put it back up.

 

Also, to expand on Hugh's comment above, consider the character recovering from unconsciousness. She's going to have END equal only to her recovery. Is it going to be practical (or even possible, without risking knocking herself out) for her to activate her COETA

power? If there's more than one, almost certainly not. In that situation, 0 END is enormously more advantageous.

 

Not convinced? You might consider a variant: CEOTA base is a +1/2 advantage, but can be reduce to a +1/4 advantage by making the endurance cost of a CEOTA power the cost of maintaining the power for a turn.

[Tiree]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

So why not just take CEOTA on Force Field instead? That would seem a more appropriate route than making Armor Cost END Only To Activate...

 

I think that is because if you bought a FF with CEOTA you would first need to make the FF 0 End, before you buy CEOTA. And even then, it is still not persistent.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I think that is because if you bought a FF with CEOTA you would first need to make the FF 0 End' date=' before you buy CEOTA. And even then, it is still not persistent.[/quote']

 

Although they have similar sounding names, one is being used as an Advantage and the other as a Limitation. Both will be non-persistent but Armor will still retain its inherent invisible power effects by default.

 

50 Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4) (50 Active Points) 4

 

48 Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) 6

 

HM

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I don't think CEOTA is worth 'just' a +1/4: I'd say it is much closer to the +1/2 level.

 

Whilst I agree that you will never acheive perfect balance, I do believe that it is perfectly valid to compare similar advantages at similar costs to estimate net utility. That is where the points balancing comes in. Half END is a very similar sort of advantage and at a similar cost, so it is a valid comparision, as is 0 END.

 

Or, think of it this way. A 60 point power costs 6 END to activate. Most superheroes have 40+ END, and, frankly, given that most powers like this will activate on the first seg 12 and be followed by a PS12 the actual loss is never likely to be really felt. If, in effect, it is going to have no real impact on your END use, it should be costed like 0 END. You can save a point by limiting 6 points of END (not useable whilst shapeshifted -1/2).

 

So your solution would be to effectively eliminate CEOTA?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Another factor to consider:

You can't take recoveries (other than post segment 12) while maintaining a non-persistent power.

For a 0 END power, you drop the power, take a recovery, put the power back up at no cost. For a CEOTA power, you drop the power, take a recovery, pay the endurance cost again to put it back up.

 

Also, to expand on Hugh's comment above, consider the character recovering from unconsciousness. She's going to have END equal only to her recovery. Is it going to be practical (or even possible, without risking knocking herself out) for her to activate her COETA

power? If there's more than one, almost certainly not. In that situation, 0 END is enormously more advantageous.

 

Not convinced? You might consider a variant: CEOTA base is a +1/2 advantage, but can be reduce to a +1/4 advantage by making the endurance cost of a CEOTA power the cost of maintaining the power for a turn.

 

Excellent points, although we are comparing CEOTA with 1/2 END, so turning a power on after being KO'd will involve some END cost anyway, and I rarely encourage my players to think that taking a recovery other than a PS12 in combat is a good idea (otherwise they end up worrying about waking up from unconsciousness )

 

I'm still not convinced it is the right limitation value.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

So your solution would be to effectively eliminate CEOTA?

 

Yes, I suppose it would. I do see it as incredibly useful from a player's POV, but I don't see it justifying the points savings over 0 END. Bear in mind it is a relatively recent addition to the system, so i consider it still in 'field testing' mode

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Yes' date=' I suppose it would. I do see it as incredibly useful from a player's POV, but I don't see it justifying the points savings over 0 END. Bear in mind it is a relatively recent addition to the system, so i consider it still in 'field testing' mode [/quote']

 

Would it be a better 'construct' if it were a limitation applied to a zero end cost advantage? Or would you consider it a -0 limitation?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Although they have similar sounding names, one is being used as an Advantage and the other as a Limitation. Both will be non-persistent but Armor will still retain its inherent invisible power effects by default.

 

50 Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4) (50 Active Points) 4

 

48 Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) 6

 

HM

 

Hyper-Man, I think that once something starts costing END it starts being visible - adding 'costs END' in any of its iterations to armour loses both the persistence and the invisibility: it is not really worth it IME. Mind you I could have been doing it wrong all these years. That's happening a lot at present...

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Although they have similar sounding names, one is being used as an Advantage and the other as a Limitation. Both will be non-persistent but Armor will still retain its inherent invisible power effects by default.

 

50 Force Field (20 PD/20 ED), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4) (50 Active Points) 4

 

48 Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) 6

 

HM

 

Oh no...

 

You have now entered a discussion that is extremely taboo.

 

Comparing the Armor and Force Field powers...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Would it be a better 'construct' if it were a limitation applied to a zero end cost advantage? Or would you consider it a -0 limitation?

 

I'd say as it is that it is equivalent to 0 END - after all what you are losing is maybe 6 END in a 350 point campaign right at the start of combat and immediately before your first recovery. Dr Device points out some excellent examples of when it is a problem BUT I don't think it provides enough of a limti to justify the point savings.

 

Now can I say that I think there should be two versions of the CEOTA, - a limitation for powers not normally costing END, and an advantage for those that do.

 

As an advantage I'd make it +1/2.

 

As a limitation, given the enormous problems with having something costing END that normally doesn't, I'd probably have it as -1/2, the same as 'costs END', but then I'd probably make 'costs END' -3/4.

 

I would not mind seeing a version of CEOTA where you have to spend END to activate but it does not make a normally no-END power visible or non-persistent. I'd probably run it like this:

 

-0 CEOTA

-1/4 C DOUBLE EOTA

-1/2 C TRIPLE EOTA

-3/4 C QUADRUPLE EOTA

 

etc (basically half the value of 'increased END cost'). I can see that being more of a problem: 12 END is a lot to find if you've just been KO'd.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I'd say as it is that it is equivalent to 0 END - after all what you are losing is maybe 6 END in a 350 point campaign right at the start of combat and immediately before your first recovery. Dr Device points out some excellent examples of when it is a problem BUT I don't think it provides enough of a limti to justify the point savings.

 

Now can I say that I think there should be two versions of the CEOTA, - a limitation for powers not normally costing END, and an advantage for those that do.

 

As an advantage I'd make it +1/2.

 

As a limitation, given the enormous problems with having something costing END that normally doesn't, I'd probably have it as -1/2, the same as 'costs END', but then I'd probably make 'costs END' -3/4.

 

I would not mind seeing a version of CEOTA where you have to spend END to activate but it does not make a normally no-END power visible or non-persistent. I'd probably run it like this:

 

-0 CEOTA

-1/4 C DOUBLE EOTA

-1/2 C TRIPLE EOTA

-3/4 C QUADRUPLE EOTA

 

etc (basically half the value of 'increased END cost'). I can see that being more of a problem: 12 END is a lot to find if you've just been KO'd.

 

Sounds like a sound, consistent and well thought out set of House-RulesTM . I doubt they would fit ALL genre equally well.

 

Is it just me or are a lot of the more recent threads in the Hero System Discussion forum turning out to be more about how-to-do-X via house-rules than how-to-do-X via book-rules?

 

Do we need a House-Rule Only forum to seperate out these 2 types of discussions from taking place in (and confusing) 1 thread?

 

HM

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Sounds like a sound' date=' consistent and well thought out set of [u']House-Rules[/u]TM . I doubt they would fit ALL genre equally well.

 

Is it just me or are a lot of the more recent threads in the Hero System Discussion forum turning out to be more about how-to-do-X via house-rules than how-to-do-X via book-rules?

 

Do we need a House-Rule Only forum to seperate out these 2 types of discussions from taking place in (and confusing) 1 thread?

 

HM

 

 

Oddly enough, given the number of tweaks I suggest i don't regularly use ANY house rules in my games (although I've promised to try out Etherio's splendid hit location rules next time I'm running an appropriate game), which i think is why I tend to lose it when I see book rules that I don't like. Ah introspection...

[Old Man]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

 

Try this: CEOTA (+1/4)costs 3* times as much END, so in the above example it would cost 12 END to activate and nothing thereafter (or the END cost would balance with 1/2 END after 6 phases. You cannot use the increased END limitation with this one but you CAN make it persistent. For a +0 you can have the advanatage as above but it costs twice as uch again to activate (24 in the above example)

 

This is already in the rules under Limitations. Costs END to Use (for Powers that don't normally cost END), Costs Extra END.

[Rapier]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

It is similar to the effect, but as akin to 1/2 END.

 

In my experience, the large END effects are attacks. Your average powers are only using a couple pts of end per phase anyway.

 

However, the END Only to Activate has a well needed concept role. The game mechanics may not have much of a difference, but consider some earth elemental type that sucks up dirt from around him (eg DI, Growth, DEF). Its the sucking up the dirst around him that is the effort. Once he sucks it up it becomes a part of him.

 

Or someone who shifts Desol...say into another Dimension. Its the shift that is the effort, not remaining there. Its kind of the hero application of Newton's Law (ie an object in motion tend to stay in motion, an object at rest tends to stay at rest).

 

So...Yes, to some extent END Only to Activate is functionally similar to 0 END, however it has a significant role to play in concept.