Spending END

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Spending END

 

Having powers not turn off when you get KO'd is worth a lot IMO.

IIRC, even powers powered by an END Reserve will turn off when you're KO'd, unless the power is Persistant.

 

And you're right about "Only to Activate." It's worth more than +1/4, but less than +1/2. Someone on these boards was advocating that we allow modifiers to have more granularity - values like +0.1, or +0.4 for example. Who was it? Oh, it was me.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Spending END

 

IIRC, even powers powered by an END Reserve will turn off when you're KO'd, unless the power is Persistant.

 

Actually, Steve Long answered this question a while back.

 

See this thread:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15074

 

Hi Steve -

 

According to the rules FAQ, Powers that draw END from an END Reserve do not have to shut off when a character is Knocked Out or otherwise unconscious, because the END Reserve and its REC continue to function. Would the same logic allow END Reserve-powered Powers to stay on when a character is Stunned? Thanks!

 

Yes.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Spending END

 

Actually' date=' Steve Long answered this question a while back.[/quote']

I stand corrected, but that's only because I'm wearing orthopedic shoes.

 

So if Cobalt Man's is KO'd while flying in his power armor, he keeps flying in a more-or-less straight line until he wakes up or his battery runs out?

[Cancer]

Re: Spending END

 

Eliminating or repricing upwards Reduced Endurance, on the face of it, systematically punishes some other character concepts as well, altering the build balance. This seems like a dagger aimed at many Energy Blaster constructs, for instance, while having little or no impact on Bricks or Martial Artists. That may be an intended consequence that alters your campaign flavor, but it makes zap-wizards in a fantasy campaign and the stereotype physically feeble TK or EB specialists in a superhero campaign largely unworkable. Those guys need to pay points BOTH for CON (or END and REC) and for powers big enough to keep up with the Joneses.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Spending END

 

Just an idle thought' date=' but I was looking at powers with END reduction the other day and thinking that the game I play might be a little more interesting if I banned that as an advantage and made the player spend the points on upping their END and/or REC instead. It would certainly make those characteristics more valuable, and would potentially better model the source material where characters do get tired - in most Champions type games END is only ever really an issue when the character is recovering from a KO.[/quote']

 

Why not this: instead of the current cost progression for Reduced END Cost, go with 3rd edition? Every 1/2 END cost is +1/4. When you get the END cost to .5 or below, it becomes 0. Maybe combine that with the old school rules for END cost; 1 END per 5 Active Points rather than 10. This incidentally would make Costs END To Activate balance a little more.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Spending END

 

Eliminating or repricing upwards Reduced Endurance' date=' on the face of it, systematically punishes some other character concepts as well, altering the build balance. This seems like a dagger aimed at many Energy Blaster constructs, for instance, while having little or no impact on Bricks or Martial Artists. That may be an intended consequence that alters your campaign flavor, but it makes zap-wizards in a fantasy campaign and the stereotype physically feeble TK or EB specialists in a superhero campaign largely unworkable. Those guys need to pay points BOTH for CON (or END and REC) and for powers big enough to keep up with the Joneses.[/quote']

 

The idea is not to penalise any particular build, although it would be interesting to see if it did, but ratehr to get characters thinking more about builds:

 

12d6 EB or a 30/30 force field = 60 points

 

1/2 END costs 15 points

0 END costs 30 points

 

15 points would buy you 30 END or 7 REC and 2 END or something in the middle.

 

30 points would buy you 60 END or 15 REC or something in the middle.

 

It will certainly change the dynamic of play a bit, but if people invest the points saved on NOT buying reduced END wisely it should not have too much effect except on the framework users who will save far less. A 'straight' blaster will be no more inconvenienced than a 'straight' brick or martial artist.

[casualplayer]

Re: Spending END

 

Just an idle thought, but I was looking at powers with END reduction the other day and thinking that the game I play might be a little more interesting if I banned that as an advantage and made the player spend the points on upping their END and/or REC instead. It would certainly make those characteristics more valuable, and would potentially better model the source material where characters do get tired - in most Champions type games END is only ever really an issue when the character is recovering from a KO.

 

On a related topic, END reserve: why do we have that at all? I mean I'd have thought that buying limited characteristics-as-powers would have been better: afterall END reserve makes END ludicrously cheap, and if the REC isn't (1 point as opposed to 2) that is hardly a balancing factor when a 15 point investment yields 150 points of END.

 

Finally, END TO ACTIVATE - OK, i know a lot of you like it - so do I, really, but it just does not balance cost-wise (and don't try to argue that it does - you are wrong*) so to balance the utility I was thinking of allowing it but as 'Costs 2x (or 3x or 4x) END to activate then nothing to maintain'. Seems fairer, somehow. Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

*Boy I'm in a mood

 

The experiment of eliminating Red END could be interesting. I would expect to see many players gravitate toward Charges though to end-run around the END issue.

 

END Reserves have always been broken, even back when they were an advantage/disadvantage. The only way the current incarnation stays close to balanced is if Drains do hit END Reserves' active point values not their gross END content.

 

Costs END to Activate should probably be a + 2/5 advantage, if we can ever break free from the tyranny of 1/4 increments. If Costs END to Activate still allows access to Pushing, I would argue that it should be a +1/2 advantage.

[schir1964]

Re: Spending END

 

The experiment of eliminating Red END could be interesting. I would expect to see many players gravitate toward Charges though to end-run around the END issue.

Hmmm.. Interesting point. Although, since it is possible to make Charges cost END per the rules, he could always enforce that.

 

END Reserves have always been broken' date=' even back when they were an advantage/disadvantage. The only way the current incarnation stays close to balanced is if Drains do hit END Reserves' active point values not their gross END content.[/quote']

As was mentioned before, and you might already know this, the current rules state that Adjustment Powers affect END Reserves at the cost of Normal END, not the Active Points of the Reserve.

 

Costs END to Activate should probably be a + 2/5 advantage' date=' if we can ever break free from the tyranny of 1/4 increments. If Costs END to Activate still allows access to Pushing, I would argue that it should be a +1/2 advantage.[/quote']

I think that Costs END Only To Activate should be restricted to Body Affecting Powers like it was originally intended. But that still doesn't address the cost. Perhaps it should be an Adder perhaps. How about a Disadvantage where points are gained for each power like this and the cost varies based on the type of power.

 

Just Meandering Thoughts

 

- Christopher Mullins

[casualplayer]

Re: Spending END

 

As was mentioned before, and you might already know this, the current rules state that Adjustment Powers affect END Reserves at the cost of Normal END, not the Active Points of the Reserve.

 

Just Meanering Thoughts

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Know it, ignore it. EMPs are stupid expensive if they have to affect END Reserves as per the current rules.

[Stone]

Re: Spending END

 

The idea is not to penalise any particular build, although it would be interesting to see if it did, but ratehr to get characters thinking more about builds:

 

12d6 EB or a 30/30 force field = 60 points

 

1/2 END costs 15 points

0 END costs 30 points

 

15 points would buy you 30 END or 7 REC and 2 END or something in the middle.

 

30 points would buy you 60 END or 15 REC or something in the middle.

 

It will certainly change the dynamic of play a bit, but if people invest the points saved on NOT buying reduced END wisely it should not have too much effect except on the framework users who will save far less. A 'straight' blaster will be no more inconvenienced than a 'straight' brick or martial artist.

 

I disagree. I think the 'straight' blaster would deffiantly be more effected than a brick or martial artistist. The blaster will normaly have more powers that cost END than a MA or Brick (ex. flight, force field, EB, Flash. etc...). Without the ability to counter that, the blaster would quickly run out of END. I can also see folks simply switching to Charges to get around rule as well. 32 charges is only + 1/4 and 64 is + 1/2. From my own experience, I have never used an EB 32 times in one session much less in one combat.

 

Also it seems to me that encouraging PC's to buy up REC to counter no reduced END, you could run into a problem since they will also be recovering STUN at a much higher rate as well. While I am not trying to speak for anyone else, I always try to have a REC of at least a 10 on my characters. The extra 15 REC makes it a minimum of 25! Yes, I know thats using the upper limit of your example, but you get the idea.

 

I agree w/you on END reserves. I have never been a fan of them. I have my own issue w/the END rules, but Reduced END is not one of them.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Spending END

 

Know it' date=' ignore it. EMPs are stupid expensive if they have to affect END Reserves as per the current rules.[/quote']

 

Stupid expensive sounds about right for a sfx that IS stupid effective (If we're talking about Electromagnetic Pulses that is).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Spending END

 

If Costs END to Activate still allows access to Pushing' date=' I would argue that it should be a +1/2 advantage.[/quote']

 

Costs END to activate seems to me like an ability that just coasts along once it's active. What about ruling that Pushing with costs END to activate effectively requires the power be deactivated and reactivated, so you spend the normal END cost + the cost of pushing. Since a Push is an extra effort, the power then shuts down, and must be reactivated again to be used normally.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Spending END

 

Hmmm.. Interesting point. Although' date=' since it is possible to make Charges cost END per the rules, he could always enforce that.[/quote']

 

I'm seeing this as creating logic issues in many cases. "I can't fire my gun or throw my grenade. The bullet will cost too much END."

 

As for Costs END to Activate, the problem is that it can't cost as much as 0 END, or save as much as "costs END". That only leaves 1/4 of room to work with.

 

As for the END reserve, if we did not have this power, how many of us would perceive that ability as limited END meriting a -4 limitation?

[casualplayer]

Re: Spending END

 

Costs END to activate seems to me like an ability that just coasts along once it's active. What about ruling that Pushing with costs END to activate effectively requires the power be deactivated and reactivated' date=' so you spend the normal END cost + the cost of pushing. Since a Push is an extra effort, the power then shuts down, and must be reactivated again to be used normally.[/quote']

 

Cost END to Activate to me seems only marginally deficient to 0 END, not enough to justify dropping it to only a +1/4 advantage. Another example of why I wish there was more granularity incorporated into the advantage/disadvantage system.

 

While I like the visual of shutting down completely before giving 110% I don't think it could be applied across the board. It would make a neat special effect but if you are barely holding up the skyscraper you don't always get the option of setting it down before really giving it the old heave-ho.