END Expenditure after the Fact

[Karmakaze]

There's a provision for "Costs END only when power is activated". How would folks manage a limitation for "Costs END when de-activated"...

 

I was thinking of this in the context of a multiform. Cinematically, you often see people channelling burst of power and being fine until the power runs its course, and then they collapse in exhaustion. They tend to be fine while possessed (or in the energy form, or whatever), so it's not a matter of the alternate form having to pay out more END.

 

I had two thoughts. One was just "Costs END only when power is de-activated" and maybe use "Costs Extra END" to simulate the hit the character takes after the fact.

 

The other's a bit wonkier to build - calculate END for the duration of the MultiForm and then apply it to the base form at the end. (And yes, I realize that, theoretically, using END->STUN->BODY it would be possible to kill a chartacter by staying in an alternate form too long - cinematically it is possible, although I'd expect it to come up more as a limit everyone's careful to avoid.)

[Killer Shrike]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

I generally model this sort of effect with a Side Effect on the individual powers that cause the Exhaustion effect. In some other cases, particularly "spells" in a fantasy campaign I allow a SE that causes Long Term Endurance as well.

[Narratio]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

Agreed, side effect would be the way to go.

 

In the cinematic effects you reference, the person unleashing the energy is usually held in place by that same energy flow. The collapse afterward is caused by the stress of maintaining a continuous flow or, if the person is just a conduit for that energy, the strain of being used and abused like old kleenex.

 

Yep, 'side effect' would appear best.

[Karmakaze]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

Agreed, side effect would be the way to go.

 

In the cinematic effects you reference, the person unleashing the energy is usually held in place by that same energy flow. The collapse afterward is caused by the stress of maintaining a continuous flow or, if the person is just a conduit for that energy, the strain of being used and abused like old kleenex.

 

Yep, 'side effect' would appear best.

 

I think the reason I was going with END is that it often seems that the more power that is used, the harder it is on the host.

 

Side effects tend to have a more set effect, although I suppose you could put togther a sliding scale for it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

If you want semi-random you just apply DRAIN vs END vs Self with an Active Point total that meets the requirements of the level of SE you took.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

I'd think carefully about the value of this limitation. END use after the fact generally means "We've won so I can collapse now", which is a lot less problematic than END which gets paid up front or the power doesn't activate.

[Mentor]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

I'd think carefully about the value of this limitation. END use after the fact generally means "We've won so I can collapse now"' date=' which is a lot less problematic than END which gets paid up front or the power doesn't activate.[/quote']

Exactly. How limiting is something that only kicks in after the threat has departed or been defeated? Rep for Hugh yet again.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

Is END-->STUN-->BODY an official rule? Maybe I'm holding over from older editions, but I would run it as END-->STUN. Burn too much and you're in GM's Option.

 

I wouldn't put a large Limitation on it. -1/4 tops. Maybe even -0, since you can usually be pretty certain that you'll not pay and END until combat is over, when everyone else rests up anyway. Although if the STUN converts to BODY maybe I'd bump it up a little.

[Karmakaze]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

Exactly. How limiting is something that only kicks in after the threat has departed or been defeated? Rep for Hugh yet again.

 

That assumes that the only reason the channeled energy would leave would be that the threat is elimiated, other than, say, a time limit or an accidental change or a need to access a different powerset.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

Is END-->STUN-->BODY an official rule? Maybe I'm holding over from older editions, but I would run it as END-->STUN. Burn too much and you're in GM's Option.

 

I wouldn't put a large Limitation on it. -1/4 tops. Maybe even -0, since you can usually be pretty certain that you'll not pay and END until combat is over, when everyone else rests up anyway. Although if the STUN converts to BODY maybe I'd bump it up a little.

 

By the book,the END goes to STUN and that's it. "Well, I'm KO'd and the team won. The team can get me back to the base until I regain consciousness."

[Play4Keeps]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

That assumes that the only reason the channeled energy would leave would be that the threat is elimiated' date=' other than, say, a time limit or an accidental change or a need to access a different powerset.[/quote']

 

In that case I'd give it the -1/4 of Only To Activate. If it's a free choice to stop or not, I'd make it -0.

 

Problem with Side Effect is SE hits when the power is started. There's no rules re. SE When Turning Off.

[Narratio]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

Hang on a second, let me make sure I'm understanding Hugh's saying.

 

Karmakaze wants to dupllicate a cinematic effect of expending so much energy that you collapse when you've "vanquished the foe" (TM pending on that phrase by the way).

 

As Hugh says, END goes to STUN. But you can PUSH almost anything, so why not PUSH into using BODY to power the effect (stupid i know, but these are heroes we're dealing with)

 

So, the character has an energy blast. He releases it, hitting his target and pays END every phase for it continuing to hit his opponent. When he runs out of END, he PUSHes to expend STUN (2END per 1 STUN pt usd) to keep the energy flowing. The blaster is still awake, but maybe down on his knees, the ernergy still flows. The STUN now runs out and the blaster collapses unless he can make a PUSH and start using his own BODY to power the energy blast (at a rate of 1 BODY for 4 END used) He's literally killing himself... which blends nicely into cinematic lore.

 

I think this can be done using just the existing PUSH rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

Hang on a second, let me make sure I'm understanding Hugh's saying.

 

Karmakaze wants to dupllicate a cinematic effect of expending so much energy that you collapse when you've "vanquished the foe" (TM pending on that phrase by the way).

 

First off, we're way off the thread theory of spending no END until the power's shut off. With that in mind:

 

As Hugh says' date=' END goes to STUN. But you can PUSH almost anything, so why not PUSH into using BODY to power the effect (stupid i know, but these are heroes we're dealing with)[/quote']

 

This isn't pushing. Pushing is a mechanic to spend extra END and access extra power. Just semantics, but it confuses the discussion if someone's trying to track it into the rules.

 

So' date=' the character has an energy blast. He releases it, hitting his target and pays END every phase for it continuing to hit his opponent. When he runs out of END, he PUSHes to expend STUN (2END per 1 STUN pt usd) to keep the energy flowing. The blaster is still awake, but maybe down on his knees, the ernergy still flows. The STUN now runs out and the blaster collapses unless he can make a PUSH and start using his own BODY to power the energy blast (at a rate of 1 BODY for 4 END used) He's literally killing himself... which blends nicely into cinematic lore.[/quote']

 

I believe he takes 1d6 STUN for every 2 END used when below 0 END. There is no mechanic for him to remain conscious/continue using the power once his STUN falls below 0.

 

I don't see any reason you couldn't adopt a mechanic like this, but you'd need to build it somehow. What kind of roll do you need to remain conscious after falling below 0 STUN? How often need it be made? If this is possible, could a character whose powers require no END use this mechanic to remain conscious and keep fighting? If not, why not?

 

As an example, one could adopt a structure where a characterbelow 0 STUN can make an Ego roll, with penalties scaling as negative STUN increases, to remain conscious and keep fighting. Like Pushing, this could be restricted to dramatically appropriate circumstances if desired.

 

This could be extended to a mechanic where a character with 0 END and 0 STUN burns BOD to power his END-using powers. Assuming we now have a "stay up at below 0 STUN" mechanic, we could rule that using a power that costs END when you are at or below 0 END and 0 STUN results in the damage inflicted by use of END (1d6 per 2 END used) becomes normal damage instead of STUN only damage.

 

In my view, the current "burn Stun for END and ultimately collapse from exhaustion" approach is adequate, but a mechanic could certainly be devised to take this further. To me, it's not worth the effort, but I also don't particularly want a machanic that allows some characters to remain conscious despite being below 0 STUN, because you have (for example) a high Ego. I'd rather have the character buy extra STUN that requires an ego roll to activate and maintain to achieve that genre bit.

[Mentor]

Re: END Expenditure after the Fact

 

That assumes that the only reason the channeled energy would leave would be that the threat is elimiated' date=' other than, say, a time limit or an accidental change or a need to access a different powerset.[/quote']

 

That is a differnt story. Similar to charges perhaps?