STUN, not END, for fuel

[Threnody]

Howdy.

I'm trying to figure how to change round a power so it uses STUN for fuel, not END. Obviously if it uses END to start, it'll need "Red. End., 0 (+.5)".

The rest I've got ideas, but I want to see what you all come up with.

 

Threnody

[Dust Raven]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Mmm... I have a few ideas. Don't know if they are good ones though.

 

My first thought is to just say put a -0 Limitation, runs off of STUN not END. Ta-da!

 

There is an existing rule that allows you to "burn" STUN when your END is 0, so maybe that could work. Perhaps a -1/4 Limitation: Must Burn STUN For END. This means that for every 2 END the Power would normally cost, you lose 1d6 STUN.

 

And of course, you could always forgoe the handwaving and buy the Power at Reduced END: 0 END and Side Effect: Drain xd6 STUN.

[Rapier]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

My first thought is to just say put a -0 Limitation, runs off of STUN not END. Ta-da!

 

There is an existing rule that allows you to "burn" STUN when your END is 0, so maybe that could work. Perhaps a -1/4 Limitation: Must Burn STUN For END. This means that for every 2 END the Power would normally cost, you lose 1d6 STUN.

 

I'm not so sure I like the -0. Burning END is much less effort than burning STUN. Yes, there is a rule to convert STUN to END but that is VERY taxing. I mean, you run out of END you are still walking around; you run out of STUN you are drooling like carni-folk at a state-fair.

 

I would at least apply a -1/2 if not -1 on the power just from burning STUN to END.

 

There are plenty of ways to do this. Have it pull off a 0 END END-Reserve so that every point of END costs 10 STUN. You can buy it off with a 0-END, Side Effect (Costs STUN instead of STUN) or you can just give it a limitation that says STUN instead of END.

 

Personally? I would probably go with an END cost and a...what is the phrase...a Side Effect that happens regardless of activation...an always on side effect? However Steve wrote it, an always on Side Effect of an amount of STUN equal to 1/2 the END (END is x2/pt where STUN is x1/pt). That is probably how I would enfore it in my games.

[Dust Raven]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

I would at least apply a -1/2 if not -1 on the power just from burning STUN to END.

 

I was suggesting -1/4 primarily because it's something everyone can normally do. There is no rule that I can find that says you must use your END before burning STUN, and all this Limitation is adds in a must (in this case, to burn STUN or don't do it). With the advantage that you get to keep all your END, this doesn't sound like much of a Limitation, unless for some reason you have loads of END and very little STUN.

[Rapier]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

There is no rule that I can find that says you must use your END before burning STUN

 

Props!! I never thought of it like that.

 

However, I still think that STUN is more important than END. Very few attacks hit your END and a LARGE number hit the STUN.

 

But I still gotta give you props for making me really think it over.

[Dust Raven]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Props!! I never thought of it like that.

 

However, I still think that STUN is more important than END. Very few attacks hit your END and a LARGE number hit the STUN.

 

But I still gotta give you props for making me really think it over.

 

Thanks. Actually, one of the most effective attacks is a Drain END. A simple Drain END 4d6, Ranged will do in most characters with a single shot. Well, it's not like they'll drop, but they'll either run away, fight defensely, or knock themselves out as you dodge their attacks.

[Rapier]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Thanks. Actually' date=' one of the most effective attacks is a Drain END. A simple Drain END 4d6, Ranged will do in most characters with a single shot. Well, it's not like they'll drop, but they'll either run away, fight defensely, or knock themselves out as you dodge their attacks.[/quote']

 

My players are SO not going to thank you for this evil thought. It's much more evil than I usually go...but we all need to expand our horizons!

[Sean Waters]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Off topic rather, but I've always thought a 4d6 INT drain rather nasty, as it has a reasonable chance of putting many characters in negative INT, which means they need to make an INT roll (which will be at most 9-) to change what they are doing. Hit them when they are running at full tilt, and they either keep bashing into walls or disappear over the horizon....

[Vurbal]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

I'd probably make it at least a -1/4 limitation if not -1/2 for 2 reasons.

 

STUN costs twice as many points as END. That may or may not be important, depending on how much STUN and END are bought above the character's base values.

 

It also affects the effectiveness of REC. Let's say a character with REC 10 takes 20 STUN and uses 20 END in a turn. Then he recovers 10 STUN and 10 END. If that same character takes 20 STUN and uses 20 STUN in place of END he effectively recovers 10 STUN and no END. In reality this wouldn't be accurate unless he doesn't use END for anything else (ie movement, other powers, etc,...) but it's still potentially limiting. OTOH if you'd expect him to use enough END in a turn to make full use of his REC this shouldn't be a factor.

[Zed-F]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

I'd agree that the INT drain is usually more effective than a END drain.

 

STR drains against low-moderate STR concepts can be horribly effective too.

 

EGO drains take a bit longer but can lead to some really brutal results, especially out of combat. Who needs a mentalist?

 

Other drains vs. characteristics can be effective, but generally require large AP attacks. Most frequently if I am going to use a moderate xd6 Drain/Suppress, Varying Effect (any one characteristic at a time) I will go with STR, INT, or EGO.

[Dust Raven]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

I'd probably make it at least a -1/4 limitation if not -1/2 for 2 reasons.

 

STUN costs twice as many points as END. That may or may not be important, depending on how much STUN and END are bought above the character's base values.

 

It also affects the effectiveness of REC. Let's say a character with REC 10 takes 20 STUN and uses 20 END in a turn. Then he recovers 10 STUN and 10 END. If that same character takes 20 STUN and uses 20 STUN in place of END he effectively recovers 10 STUN and no END. In reality this wouldn't be accurate unless he doesn't use END for anything else (ie movement, other powers, etc,...) but it's still potentially limiting. OTOH if you'd expect him to use enough END in a turn to make full use of his REC this shouldn't be a factor.

 

That's a pretty good call there, and I think you've changed my opinion on this.

[Dust Raven]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Drains in general are wickedly powerful is used against the right target. A Drain STR 4d6, Ranged will take down most mooks instantly... but so will an EB 12d6, so I suppose it's fair. What's powerful about the Drain is that it can also take down a fair number of supers in one or two hits. And that's whether it's Drain STR, INT, END or whatever.

[Threnody]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

OK, looks like folx have pretty much come up with the two ideas I had. Least it confirms I'm on the right track.

 

My first way was just whip up a Lim-Lim: "Lose 1 STUN for every 10 Active Points used."

Second was call it a Side Effect, Always Happens. Now this gets tricky. I don't want a Drain cause it's random, and saying "Lose X STUN" isn't fair if the gal only uses part of the Power ('suming it's a so-many dice power). You all reckon "1 STUN per 10 Active Points" is OK as a Side Effect?

Anyways, what would you all say it's worth? -1/4, -1/2?

 

Oh, and I don't go with it costing half as much STUN as it'd've costed END. You REC STUN at the same rate as END, y'know.

BTW, I'm thinking this for a spell/power that's not used much, so what Vurbul said about it making REC less powerful won't happen nuf to matter. Good thinking, tho'.

[Vurbal]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

If only a single power has this and it isn't going to affect REC very often (if ever) or very much I'd give it a -1/4.

Oh, and I don't go with it costing half as much STUN as it'd've costed END. You REC STUN at the same rate as END, y'know.

Yes, but for situations where you might end up buying more to make up for what you're burning on the power (sounds like not your situation) you pay twice as much for the additional STUN. Of course, if it were a character that isn't likely to take STUN damage very often you could just as easily argue to make it a +1/4 advantage. It's all in the specifics of the character and the power.

[Mister E]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

This concept of burning STUN would be great for representing characters like X-Man (Nate Grey), the guy spawned from the Age of Apocolypse story-arch, who got bloody noses and passed out from using his enormously raw telekinetic powers.

[prestidigitator]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Come on, guys. Even x2 End Cost is worth a -1/2. I think replacing End Cost with Stun Cost is worth at least that.

[Threnody]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Come on' date=' guys. Even x2 End Cost is worth a -1/2. I think replacing End Cost with Stun Cost is worth at least that.[/quote']

Good point. I used that (and other things people said) on my GM and she figures that's about right.

 

So -1/2 it is. Now we're trying to figure if "Loses 1 STUN For Every 10 AP Used" works best as a Side Effect or as a straight-ahead Limited Power Limitation. Anybody got any druthers?

[prestidigitator]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

So -1/2 it is. Now we're trying to figure if "Loses 1 STUN For Every 10 AP Used" works best as a Side Effect or as a straight-ahead Limited Power Limitation. Anybody got any druthers?

I'd make it its own Limitation. Side Effects are a little too chunky (they have those pesky minimum levels, and you may run into issues with using Standard Effect for the, "damage"). If you can come up with a good value for it, just make it a custom Limitation.

[casualplayer]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Couldn't you just buy the power to 0 END and give yourself a Susceptability to using the power?

[Threnody]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

I'd make it its own Limitation. Side Effects are a little too chunky (they have those pesky minimum levels' date=' and you may run into issues with using Standard Effect for the, "damage"). If you can come up with a good value for it, just make it a custom Limitation.[/quote']

 

Yah, I think you're right about Side Effect. I'll forward what you said to my GM.

 

Thanks.

[Threnody]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Couldn't you just buy the power to 0 END and give yourself a Susceptability to using the power?

'Cept Sus. is random, and doesn't increase/decrease when the char. uses more/less of the Power. Not really modeling the way END works normally.

 

Thanks for trying, tho'!

[casualplayer]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

'Cept Sus. is random, and doesn't increase/decrease when the char. uses more/less of the Power. Not really modeling the way END works normally.

 

Thanks for trying, tho'!

 

Jigga-whah? There is an option for buying Susceptability to take effect Instantly, say if you were using an Instant power. Continuous powers work ideally.

 

If you want gradation in the STUN burn, buy multiple Susc. First 20 AP of the power-1d6 STUN, second 20 AP-1d6 STUN, third 20 AP-1d6 STUN, etc. with the commonality determined by how often and intense you crank up the power. It will also make it a lot easier if you want to start buying down how much this power tears you up.

[Threnody]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

Jigga-whah? There is an option for buying Susceptability to take effect Instantly' date=' say if you were using an Instant power. Continuous powers work ideally.[/quote']

What's that got to do with anything I asked about?

 

If you want gradation in the STUN burn' date=' buy multiple Susc. First 20 AP of the power-1d6 STUN, second 20 AP-1d6 STUN, third 20 AP-1d6 STUN, etc. with the commonality determined by how often and intense you crank up the power. It will also make it a lot easier if you want to start buying down how much this power tears you up.

I emphasized the problem. Like I already said, it's random. You don't roll dice to find out how much END your power has to be fueled by, and I'm trying to replace END with STUN, acting just the same all around, for this one power. That's why I tried to let you down easy in my last post. Cause you're way off on it with this idea.

 

It'd work for a different kind of power, but it just don't do what I was after.

 

Anyway, Me and my GM have gone for a "Limited Power Limitation" (better known as a Lim-Lim). Thanks to everyone that helped!

[schir1964]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

I emphasized the problem. Like I already said' date=' it's random. You don't roll dice to find out how much END your power has to be fueled by, and I'm trying to replace END with STUN, acting just the same all around, for this one power. That's why I tried to let you down easy in my last post. Cause you're way off on it with this idea.[/quote']

I thought you didn't have to use dice with Susceptibility and Vulnerability, but instead use the Set Effect option so that it would become 3 Stun per level and so forth.

 

Not saying this is ideal for what you want, just that you don't have to roll if you don't want to and therefore doesn't have to be random.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: STUN, not END, for fuel

 

I just don't like the idea of buying a Susceptibility of your own one Power for some reason. It just seems like it should be defined as part of the Power, not a full character Disadvantage. I mean, you could never decide to use that one Power and thus never be subject to the Disadvantage, which seems to offer a lot more control than a Susceptibility that, while the circumstances might be rare, is at least somewhat under the GM's control and not the player's. The intention of this is also to provide a means of fueling the Power, which to me lies very much in the realm of the power's parameters, not the character's.