Costs END Only to Activate

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

If all your powers are 'END to activate only', then once they are active you could be END drained to zero, and they would still be running, thus providing you with a pretty good defence against END drain. OK, not much of a point, but it is something to consider

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

So...Yes' date=' to some extent END Only to Activate is functionally similar to 0 END, however it has a significant role to play in concept.[/quote']

Again, I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion! I have seen many great examples of the utility of Costs END Only to Activate and I completely agree that it has a place in simulating certain character concepts.

 

While I also agree that Costs END Only to Activate is somewhat more limited than 0 END, I disagree that it should be a +1/4 Advantage. In my campaigns I will value it as a +1/2 Advantage.

 

It has been suggested that Advantages/Limitations might be valued in tenths rather than quarters. I think that is an excellent idea.

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Again' date=' I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion! I have seen many great examples of the utility of [i']Costs END Only to Activate[/i] and I completely agree that it has a place in simulating certain character concepts.

 

While I also agree that Costs END Only to Activate is somewhat more limited than 0 END, I disagree that it should be a +1/4 Advantage. In my campaigns I will value it as a +1/2 Advantage.

 

It has been suggested that Advantages/Limitations might be valued in tenths rather than quarters. I think that is an excellent idea.

 

Are you going to leave Zero End Cost at a +1/2? If so, why have CEOTA?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Are you going to leave Zero End Cost at a +1/2? If so' date=' why have CEOTA?[/quote']

 

That would be character concept then, rather than simply points efficiency. You'll never see a munchkin with CEOTA if it costs the same as 0 END. Might make quite a good munchkin test, come to think of it....

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

That would be character concept then' date=' rather than simply points efficiency. You'll never see a munchkin with CEOTA if it costs the same as 0 END. Might make quite a good munchkin test, come to think of it....[/quote']

 

Actually, I don't think you will see anyone with CEOTA if it's a +1/2 advantage. Period.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Actually' date=' I don't think you will see anyone with CEOTA if it's a +1/2 advantage. Period.[/quote']

 

You might be surprised

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

You might be surprised

 

No might. I would be suprised.

 

I still think that CEOTA is better off being a -1/4 limitation specifically for powers bought to Zero End Cost as a better solution, but whatever...

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Are you going to leave Zero End Cost at a +1/2?

Yes.

 

If so' date=' why have CEOTA?[/quote']

For those who have a character concept that suggests Costs END Only to Activate makes more sense than 0 END.

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I still think that CEOTA is better off being a -1/4 limitation specifically for powers bought to Zero End Cost as a better solution' date=' but whatever...[/quote']

I'm sure that will work out great for you. Happy HEROing!

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I still think that CEOTA is better off being a -1/4 limitation specifically for powers bought to Zero End Cost as a better solution' date=' but whatever...[/quote']I agree. If one is bothered by CEOTA's utility compared to 1/2 END or 0 END, I think just buying 0 END, then applying a Limitation that the Power still costs END to activate it, is a fairer way to go.

 

Because no matter how you slice it, 0 END is better than CEOTA. Period. Having the two cost the same is just as imbalanced as having 1/2 END and CEOTA cost the same... it's just imbalance in a different direction.

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I agree. If one is bothered by CEOTA's utility compared to 1/2 END or 0 END, I think just buying 0 END, then applying a Limitation that the Power still costs END to activate it, is a fairer way to go.

 

Because no matter how you slice it, 0 END is better than CEOTA. Period. Having the two cost the same is just as imbalanced as having 1/2 END and CEOTA cost the same... it's just imbalance in a different direction.

 

Exactly!

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I agree. If one is bothered by CEOTA's utility compared to 1/2 END or 0 END, I think just buying 0 END, then applying a Limitation that the Power still costs END to activate it, is a fairer way to go.

 

Because no matter how you slice it, 0 END is better than CEOTA. Period. Having the two cost the same is just as imbalanced as having 1/2 END and CEOTA cost the same... it's just imbalance in a different direction.

If they are just as imbalanced, then how can one be a fairer way to go?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

If they are just as imbalanced' date=' then how can one be a fairer way to go? [/quote']The one that I said was fairer isn't one of the two I said were equally imbalanced.

 

All I'm saying is this...

 

If you argue that CEOTA should be +1/2 because it's better than Half END which is +1/4, then all you're doing is trading one imbalance for another, because CEOTA is not as good as 0 END, which is also +1/2. You're still left with two Advantages of equal cost but inequal utility... it's just that instead of Half END and CEOTA being unequally useful in effect (but equal in cost) at +1/4, now you've got 0 END and CEOTA being unequally useful in effect (but equal in cost) at +1/2.

 

If the current costing of CEOTA bothers you (an opinion I don't share, but YMMV), you might be well served to try and find a way to make it cost more than Half END, but less than 0 END. One way to do that (without breaking the fractional modifier costs into eighths or something) would be to have the Power take 0 END, then apply a Limitation (to the cost of the Advantage only) that it still costs END to activate.

 

For example, consider these:

 

8 Levels of Growth: 40 points

8 Levels of Growth, Half END (+1/4): 50 points

8 Levels of Growth, 0 END (+1/2): 60 points

 

Then consider this...

 

8 Levels of Growth: 40 points

Naked Advantage on Growth: 0 END (+1/2) (20 Active Points); Still Costs END to Activate (-1/4 or -1/2): 16 points for -1/4, or 13 points for -1/2.

Total Cost: 53/56 points

[Sean Waters]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

The one that I said was fairer isn't one of the two I said was equally imbalanced.

 

All I'm saying is this...

 

If you argue that CEOTA should be +1/2 because it's better than Half END which is +1/4, then all you're doing is trading one imbalance for another, because CEOTA is not as good as 0 END, which is also +1/2. You're still left with two Advantages of equal cost but inequal utility... it's just that instead of Half END and CEOTA being unequally useful in effect (but equal in cost) at +1/4, now you've got 0 END and CEOTA being unequally useful in effect (but equal in cost) at +1/2.

 

If the current costing of CEOTA bothers you (an opinion I don't share, but YMMV), you might be well served to try and find a way to make it cost more than Half END, but less than 0 END. One way to do that (without breaking the fractional modifier costs into eighths or something) would be to have the Power take 0 END, then apply a Limitation (to the cost of the Advantage only) that it still costs END to activate.

 

For example, consider these:

 

8 Levels of Growth: 40 points

8 Levels of Growth, Half END (+1/4): 50 points

8 Levels of Growth, 0 END (+1/2): 60 points

 

Then consider this...

 

8 Levels of Growth: 40 points

Naked Advantage on Growth: 0 END (+1/2) (20 Active Points); Still Costs END to Activate (-1/4 or -1/2): 16 points for -1/4, or 13 points for -1/2.

Total Cost: 53/56 points

 

1/2 END

 

1/2 END = +1/4

0 END = +1/2

 

No wiggle room, it is a straight pick. Now the book says +1/4, so that IS right, but I disagree, as I think, although CEOTA is between the other two it is closer to 0 END in overall impact.

 

I do like your solution: it puts the balance back in the middle, but has the (slight) disadvantage of being a more complex build - limiting the advantage points - and would become more complex yet if there were other limitations to take into consideration that affected the whole power.

 

I would say this is what it is WORTH:

 

40 points of growth at 0 END = 60 points

 

Growth costs 4 END to turn on, so take away 4 END when the growth is 'on' by putting a lockout limitiation of 4 points of END (-1/2), which will save you 1 point, for a total of 59. I think this, even though it is a bit of a clunky way to do it, accurately reflects the point on the line of utilty that CEOTA falls at.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I would say this is what it is WORTH:

 

40 points of growth at 0 END = 60 points

 

Growth costs 4 END to turn on, so take away 4 END when the growth is 'on' by putting a lockout limitiation of 4 points of END (-1/2), which will save you 1 point, for a total of 59. I think this, even though it is a bit of a clunky way to do it, accurately reflects the point on the line of utilty that CEOTA falls at.

 

I disagree. If your character has just awakened from being KO'd (which switched off his Growth), and has awakened with 6 STUN, and therefore 6 END, locking out some of his (waiting to be recovered anyway) END has minimial impact. Spending 4 of his remaining 6 END to activate Growth leaves him with 2 END, not enough to use the extra STR that growth gave him (much less his base STR as well) without STUN loss.

 

Assume base 20 STR and, under your model, the character grows, makes a 1/2 move (1 END) and punches (6 END) losing 1/2d6 STUN - still consious. CEOTA means actovate Growth (2 END left), 1/2 move (1 END left) and punch (6 END) losing 2 1/2d6 STUN, almost certainly KO'd again.

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

If you argue that CEOTA should be +1/2 because it's better than Half END which is +1/4' date=' then all you're doing is trading one imbalance for another, because CEOTA is not as good as 0 END, which is also +1/2.[/quote'] Absolutely true.

 

You're still left with two Advantages of equal cost but inequal utility... it's just that instead of Half END and CEOTA being unequally useful in effect (but equal in cost) at +1/4' date=' now you've got 0 END and CEOTA being unequally useful in effect (but equal in cost) at +1/2.[/quote'] Yup. That's exactly what I wrote earlier.

 

If the current costing of CEOTA bothers you (an opinion I don't share' date=' but YMMV), you might be well served to try and find a way to make it cost more than Half END, but less than 0 END. One way to do that (without breaking the fractional modifier costs into eighths or something) would be to have the Power take 0 END, then apply a Limitation (to the cost of the Advantage only) that it still costs END to activate.[/quote'] I really appreciate all the work you did on this. But I don't feel the need to go that far. The current costing of Costs END Only to Activate does bother me and I've solved it in a way that I think is fair. Clearly you disagree and that's fine.

 

Ultimately, I do think it would probably be better for the system as a whole to go with changing the fractional modifier costs into tenths. But I'm not going to rework the system myself and if it never changes, that's fine.

 

If it did change to tenths, then I might rate them something like this:

1/2 END +.25

Costs END Only to Activate +.4

0 END +.5

 

But then I might not. It would have to be playtested, yes?

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I really appreciate all the work you did on this. But I don't feel the need to go that far. The current costing of Costs END Only to Activate does bother me and I've solved it in a way that I think is fair. Clearly you disagree and that's fine.

 

The only problem is that you have now made COETA completely not worth taking in your campaign.

 

It would have been better to rework the mechanics of COETA to where you pay the end cost of the power every post 12 after recovery...

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

The only problem is that you have now made COETA completely not worth taking in your campaign.

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Costs END Only to Activate valued as a +1/2 Advantage is certainly worth taking in my campaign. If it fits the character conception in should be taken. It adds flavor and interest to the character.

 

I have a player building a character right now. The character has a TK Force Field. He wrote (without a word from me) in the notes for the power that the force field does not work against certain forms of energy attack due to the nature of the power. This is not taken as a Limitation. The player thought that the self-imposed limit on his force field was not worth any points (he's right) but that it fits his character conception and so it ought to go in.

 

While other campaigns may have players who find the worth of their Advantages and Limitations only in their point values, I'm happy to say that the players in my campaign see worth in a different light.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Costs END Only to Activate valued as a +1/2 Advantage is certainly worth taking in my campaign. If it fits the character conception in should be taken. It adds flavor and interest to the character.

 

Why is this argument always trotted out to justify making some ability or another cost more than it really should cost? "Oh, well, when it's really in concept, the player should take it, even though it is not cost effective".

 

One could ask how many NPC's have similar inefficient builds, but that's neither here nor there since they can have unlimited points.

 

An equally valid argument would be "well, this particular ability is undercosted, but we should let the character have it because it's consistent with their concept." A similar argument is used to push the "minor benefits of special effects" structure to allow, say, that "My character manipulates gravity to fly, so he's never really flying against gravity and shouldn't have his flight halved for moving upwards".

 

Why should certain constructs be accepted as being overpriced, but that's OK because it's in concept. This thyread is a great example of that, in my opinion. Utech, how is it you can happily live with characters for whom CEOTA being "slightly" overcharged for the effectiveness of the advantage, but cannot live with having the same characters being "slightly" undercharged for the exact same, perfectly in concept, abilities?

[Force]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Costs END Only to Activate valued as a +1/2 Advantage is certainly worth taking in my campaign. If it fits the character conception in should be taken. It adds flavor and interest to the character.

 

It doesn't really add 'flavor and interest' to any character any more than saying, "I power up my density increase'. A density increase that doesn't cost him 2 or 3 end as opposed to zero end. The actual 'flavor' is the fact it doesn't cost him end every phase, it's not always on and it shuts off when he is con stunned or unconcious.

 

And I agree completely with Hugh. Character conception being the excuse. Oi vey.

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Utech' date=' how is it you can happily live with characters for whom CEOTA being "slightly" overcharged for the effectiveness of the advantage, but cannot live with having the same characters being "slightly" undercharged for the exact same, perfectly in concept, abilities?[/quote']

I think I've gone into detail on this a number of times. Sorry I can't seem to make it clear. I'll try once more...

 

I think that Costs END Only to Activate is worth more than the +1/4 Advantage 1/2 END and less than the +1/2 Advantage O END. I think the true value of Costs END Only to Activate is closer to that of 1/2 END than it is to 0 END. Using standard HERO rounding rules, I determined that for my campaigns, Costs END Only to Activate is a +1/2 Advantage.

 

I assure you that I could live with being slightly undercharged for the exact same, perfectly in concept, abilities. But I don't think that's the case here.

 

Clearly you disagree. Great. I hope I've answered your question.

[Utech]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

It doesn't really add 'flavor and interest' to any character any more than saying, "I power up my density increase'. A density increase that doesn't cost him 2 or 3 end as opposed to zero end. The actual 'flavor' is the fact it doesn't cost him end every phase, it's not always on and it shuts off when he is con stunned or unconcious.

 

And I agree completely with Hugh. Character conception being the excuse. Oi vey.

 

I think it is very sad that you feel this way. But to each his own. I do not ever think of character conception as an excuse. Character conception is why I play the game. If part of my character conception means that I end up with a power that is less effective than another character's similar power, it does not bother me in the least.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

I think it is very sad that you feel this way. But to each his own. I do not ever think of character conception as an excuse. Character conception is why I play the game. If part of my character conception means that I end up with a power that is less effective than another character's similar power' date=' it does not bother me in the least.[/quote']

 

So if you want to run a high DEX, high Speed, Martial Artist, and I tell you that, in my games, Dex costs 5 points (not 3) and doesn't feed to SPD (which itself costs 30 points), you're OK spending 100 points to have a 30 DEX, and another 150 to have a 7 SPD? Oh, and bonus MA damage classes cost 7 in my game, by the way.

 

The typical character in my game, of course, has about a 11 - 15 DEX and a 2 - 3 Speed, but buys lots of defenses (1 CP for +4 DEF, +6 if it's not resistant) and OCV levels (only 3 points in my game to add +1 OCV on everything).

 

But it's great that you want to play a classic Martial Artist - for some reason I can't fathom, no one ever plays one in my games!

 

Admittedly a much more extreme example than the CEOTA issue, but it's only a question of m,agnitude, not philosophy.

 

I'm quite all right telling someone "Your house rules [or the game rules] for "Ability X" are such that I will leave my character with that concept for another game, where he will be an equal player, not a kid sidekick."

[Tiree]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Am I not mistaken, but Doesn't "Costs Endurance Only to Activate" has to be put on a power that has No Endurance?

 

So if you have a power that is an attack or a power that normally has endurance, and you purchase this, the Active Points will go through the roof. Because now you have to purchase a 1/2 advantage.

 

So if you have an Active Point Cap in your game, it really is a disadvantage, isn't it? I tend to play in a 250pt Super Hero campaign with a 75pt Active Point cap, it can be a problem. On top of that, if you have a power that is naturally costs no endurance, and now it does, you may have lost some other features, not only now paying endurance.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Costs END Only to Activate

 

Am I not mistaken' date=' but Doesn't "Costs Endurance Only to Activate" has to be put on a power that has [b']No Endurance[/b]?

 

You are confusing the limitation with the similarly named advantage (which is what this thread has been about).

 

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

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

HM