kave99 Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Re: Incremental End Cost? god this sounds like the old 1Ed 1/2 end for a +1/4 add , 1/2 of 1/2 end for +1/2 add etc. it was changed to make things less complex. sum times it's good to have sum history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Re: Incremental End Cost? god this sounds like the old 1Ed 1/2 end for a +1/4 add ' date=' 1/2 of 1/2 end for +1/2 add etc. it was changed to make things less complex. sum times it's good to have sum history[/quote'] We arent talking about ADVANTAGES, we're talking about ADDERS. Some times its good to examine things that don't make sense and fix them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kave99 Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Re: Incremental End Cost? yes you are . and i don't disagree that the 4d6 nnd ae 0 end should cost the same as the 12d6 0 end, but im not so sure that the hole adder's thing dos not make things more complex than necessary thats my point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kave99 Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Re: Incremental End Cost? buy the way the more i think about it the more i like this adder idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kave99 Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Re: Incremental End Cost? OK got sum sleep| now the real problem ea and nnd are vary powerfully advantages on there own and more so when combined with or without 0 end. i think this can be fixed in the same manor as auto fire is when combined with ea,nnd, o end etc.[ see PG last 3 paragraphs 5er] a additional +1 adv should sort things out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaxiMan Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Re: Incremental End Cost? I'm just a bystander in this discussion, but wondered if there would be any repercussions to this proposed change because we can have naked advantages. Is is legal to have naked adders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Re: Incremental End Cost? I'm just a bystander in this discussion' date=' but wondered if there would be any repercussions to this proposed change because we can have naked advantages. Is is legal to have naked adders?[/quote'] Yes, its mentioned as something that is legal, but I dont recall there being an example of it, and I dont recall seeing it used on a character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zornwil Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Re: Incremental End Cost? I think what's been really at the back of my mind on this is that as stated in the first post, the least efficient, so to speak, way to do END reduction in the current rules is the otherwise-unadvantaged straight power, the example initially given of the 12d6 blast costing +30 points for 0 END while the particular 4d6 advantaged one costs only +10 for the same. There's a lurking implication, given the designers well knew this as it's fairly obvious, along with the demotion of END in HERO, that the higher points cost is the "worst case" cost of additional END and differently constructed, more efficient builds would yield that better case. So this would tend to mean that a true averaged cost of END would be slightly lower than worst case. Which would mean that rather than entirely penalize the former 4d6 guy, perhaps we just change the value to something in-between, to represent the probable norm, given Reduced END is often coupled with another Advantage. The problem is that other values don't go in 5 point increments and that's slightly messy in a way. But I'd go more like -1 END per +4 points, which in the aforementioned case comes out to 24 points and seems closer to an approximate value for the real system effects of today. Very minor nitpick and arguable at that (given the "worst case" mentioned above may be the desired one anyway plus the 4 point thing is a hassle), but that's the source of what's been bugging me a bit in thinking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Re: Incremental End Cost? I haven't read all replies, but I'd just like to add that I find it equally annoying that there is no real (cost-effective) way to have a Power cost End over a longer time period than one Phase. I'd like to see builds that make a Power cost their End every Turn, Minute, 5 Minutes, etc., without a great deal of handwaving and have them look somehow more appealing build-wise than buying the Power at 0 End. I've tried things in the past, but the only real way to resolve this particular issue is to increase the value of Reduced End Cost enormously, which I am also not happy with. Why can't I have it both ways?! Grr.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Rose Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Re: Incremental End Cost? I haven't read all replies' date=' but I'd just like to add that I find it equally annoying that there is no real (cost-effective) way to have a Power cost End over a longer time period than one Phase. I'd like to see builds that make a Power cost their End every Turn, Minute, 5 Minutes, etc., without a great deal of handwaving and have them look somehow more appealing build-wise than buying the Power at 0 End. I've tried things in the past, but the only real way to resolve this particular issue is to increase the value of [i']Reduced End Cost[/i] enormously, which I am also not happy with. Why can't I have it both ways?! Grr.... I'd also like to see this one. Ever since I built my first Champions character (the one where I thought you had to buy EB to do STUN at Range, and RKA to do BODY at Range -shakes head-) I've wanted something I could add on to let me pay END over a longer time. If I can have "Costs END Only To Activate; +1/4", why can't I have ""Costs END Once Per Turn/Minute/5 Minutes/etc.; +???" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Re: Incremental End Cost? Kind of nonintuitive and clumsy, but you can make the Power 0 END and then take a Side Effect to spend END over variant increments of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted January 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Re: Incremental End Cost? I'd also like to see this one. Ever since I built my first Champions character (the one where I thought you had to buy EB to do STUN at Range' date=' and RKA to do BODY at Range -shakes head-) I've wanted something I could add on to let me pay END over a longer time. If I can have "Costs END Only To Activate; +1/4", why can't I have ""Costs END Once Per Turn/Minute/5 Minutes/etc.; +???"[/quote'] How about buying it 0 End and then taking a Physical Limitation on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilFleischmann Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Re: Incremental End Cost? I haven't read all replies' date=' but I'd just like to add that I find it equally annoying that there is no real (cost-effective) way to have a Power cost End over a longer time period than one Phase. I'd like to see builds that make a Power cost their End every Turn, Minute, 5 Minutes, etc., without a great deal of handwaving and have them look somehow more appealing build-wise than buying the Power at 0 End.[/quote'] How 'bout Continuing Charges that Cost END? Perhaps the END could even be through an END Reserve. That makes it more complicated, but it allows it to be as fine-tuned as you want. Ex: Invisibility (to taste), Continuing Charges that last 1 Turn, Costs END (or maybe even Costs END to Activate). This way, you only pay END once per turn. At the start of the next turn, you use another charge (and pay END again) if you want to remain invisible. Perhaps an even better idea is to use the Lingering Advantage from Fantasy HERO. The power hangs around for a defined period even after you stop paying END, then just pay END once per that period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Incremental End Cost? Couldn't you do this with Fuel Charges? But then you're stuck with a number of Charges... hrmmm... need a middle ground methinks (Or: yeah, I agree with you guys). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.