Charges is a limitation?

[Tauman.EXE]

The charges limitation is a limitation, it stands so in the book, and not only is one of those limitation that you can disallow the players, it is so basic. And what does it do. Well, it removes the endurance cost of you power, it don't seems quite right to me.

 

Well ofc it limits the number of uses you have each day (or month, w-ever), but nulling the endurance cost seems more like an advantage to me.

 

Also there is another thing that makes no sense at all. You can apply adders to the charges limitation to make it into an advantage but not more than +1. but the no endurance cost is only a +1/2 advantage. How can charges be more usefull than no endurance cost?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

On the subject of no Endurance cost, while in most cases 0 END is a +1/2 Advantage, in the case of a Power with the Autofire Advantage the cost for Reduced Endurance is doubled, so 0 END would be +1. This was the reasoning given in the rulebook for capping the maximum Advantage for Charges at +1; so many Autofire attacks are built with Charges due to the prohibitive END expenditure of using them. Beyond 256 Charges at the +1 level, any additional Charges give little to no practical benefit during most play sessions.

 

You'll notice that 16 Charges is neither an Advantage nor a Limitation, and doesn't change the cost of the Power. That's because a Power with 16 Charges has been evaluated as being equally useful as a Power with normal Endurance cost - the tradeoff between limited number of uses and no need to expend END is considered even. Below 16 Charges the Power is considered Limited compared to normal END use; above 16 it's considered Advantaged.

 

I hope all that was clear. If not feel free to post followup questions.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

The downside to Charges vs Reduced Endurance is that you can't push a power on Charges, whereas you can push a power bought to Zero END. I suppose there's Boostable Charges for that, but that's another kettle of fish.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

As for the Limitation on Charges - I've a character who carries a six shooter with a spare cylinder, 2 clips of 6 charges. And yep, I've run very close to using them all.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

The downside to Charges vs Reduced Endurance is that you can't push a power on Charges' date=' whereas you can push a power bought to Zero END. I suppose there's Boostable Charges for that, but that's another kettle of fish.[/quote']

 

Actually (5ER p427) you can't push a power that has the advantage '0 END'.

 

I've always ignored that rule.

 

As a general point I would like to say that I do not really like the idea of advantages that limit a character or limtiations that give advantages: charges being an example...my preference would be for the elements to be broken down so that a power with charges still cost END unless you bought it to zero END - the limitation would then JUST be a limit on the number of uses. Seems cleaner to me.

 

A lot of advantages and limitations work this way, and although it is not a constant problem it does bug me when it comes up.

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Actually (5ER p427) you can't push a power that has the advantage '0 END'.

 

I've always ignored that rule.

 

As a general point I would like to say that I do not really like the idea of advantages that limit a character or limtiations that give advantages: charges being an example...my preference would be for the elements to be broken down so that a power with charges still cost END unless you bought it to zero END - the limitation would then JUST be a limit on the number of uses. Seems cleaner to me.

 

A lot of advantages and limitations work this way, and although it is not a constant problem it does bug me when it comes up.

 

Having charges is a limitation no matter how you look at it everything in life has pro's and con's and if the pro's out weigh the con's its an advantage and vice versa its a limitation. To argue simantics is pointless because every advantage or limitation could be proved from perspective to offer pro's and con's thus making them all invalid.

 

Example area effect is an advantage that allows you to hit multiple targets limitation it hits everyone friend or foe and you cant control that unless you purchase advantage selective then you can hit who you want within your are limitation you have to hit target's dcv instead of the hex's 3 dcv I could go on and on but it's pointless because in the end the pro's out way the con's and that's why its classified as advantage.

 

But people will always find something to nit pick over and claim how they could have done it better! I'm one who believes if you can make it better do so otherwise accept what you have.

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Charges are gone for the duration of time where as a power that cost normal endurance can keep going indefinitly with a few tactical recoveries so charges restrict a power just on that fact alone.

 

lets say after a battle you have used 3/4 of your charges and apower that uses END has used almost all of his END by the next fight hours later if not minutes assuming you have a comic 4 color or action pack story the charges are still down the power that cost END has access to a renewed amount of END because of Recovery. How much more plain can It be made that things are classified properly.

[Robyn]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

To argue simantics is pointless because every advantage or limitation could be proved from perspective to offer pro's and con's thus making them all invalid.

 

Err . . . semantics incorporates context, which itself includes perspective. If you're arguing semantics with someone who omits perspective, that doesn't prove semantics is pointless, just that they're making a bad argument

 

By the way, Advantages and Limitations are not rendered invalid just because they can offer both benefits and drawbacks in different situations; indeed, this behavior is noted (and approved of) in the book.

[Robyn]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

By the way' date=' Advantages and Limitations are [b']not[/b] rendered invalid just because they can offer both benefits and drawbacks in different situations; indeed, this behavior is noted (and approved of) in the book.

 

Oddly, only the "benefits of Limitations" behavior is noted in 5ER (page 280). Perhaps the author(s) only deemed it necessary to notify players that Limitations might not work as expected?

[Tauman.EXE]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Well, I know that the rules aren't a science and all but I seems to me that how limiting (or benefiting) charges is depends heavily on the game, when we play supers we oftenly go through 2-3 fights each session (I bet that is about how often ye are supposed to do it), but in some settings (I don't know what) it can seems possible that you play ~10 fights each day, in that case the charges limitation would not be worth it (wich could make it harder to create a fun-to-play character with your concept). About how many times do you think charges is balanced to be used? (wow, that was messy (and uninteresting)).

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Err . . . semantics incorporates context, which itself includes perspective. If you're arguing semantics with someone who omits perspective, that doesn't prove semantics is pointless, just that they're making a bad argument

 

By the way, Advantages and Limitations are not rendered invalid just because they can offer both benefits and drawbacks in different situations; indeed, this behavior is noted (and approved of) in the book.

 

I dont believe you caught my point, I never said they were invalid just that they would be if you did not allow them to both have Pro's and Con's seeing as though they all already do!

 

Read My whole arguement because you're saying a lot of the point I was making!

[tesuji]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

In general, I think it would be better "design" to have charges be simply disadvantageous. have it be a simple cap on "uses per time" and if its appropriate for that to also be "0 end" then you buy +1/2 "0 end". That is a cleaner model, IMO.

 

However, the vast majority of the times i see charges used is for "ammo" powers like guns and bows and such, and not for odd "spells per day" kind of stuff so, in fact, the majority of the time having charges be 0 endurance was dead on target, so I can live with "charges as zero end" as a "ease of use" compromise in design.

 

Well' date=' I know that the rules aren't a science and all but I seems to me that how limiting (or benefiting) charges is depends heavily on the game, when we play supers we oftenly go through 2-3 fights each session (I bet that is about how often ye are supposed to do it), but in some settings (I don't know what) it can seems possible that you play ~10 fights each day, in that case the charges limitation would not be worth it (wich could make it harder to create a fun-to-play character with your concept). About how many times do you think charges is balanced to be used? (wow, that was messy (and uninteresting)).[/quote']

 

Most limitations are just so subjective. You could easily say the same thing about many advantages. Not only does number of combats matter but duration of combats. For things like armor piercing typical defenses levels" matters a lot. If the game is run just such and such, things balance out... and many Gms adjust to these factors either by adjusting their scenarios/adventures to fit the osts or altering the costs to fit the scenarios.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Having charges is a limitation no matter how you look at it everything in life has pro's and con's and if the pro's out weigh the con's its an advantage and vice versa its a limitation. To argue simantics is pointless because every advantage or limitation could be proved from perspective to offer pro's and con's thus making them all invalid.

 

Example area effect is an advantage that allows you to hit multiple targets limitation it hits everyone friend or foe and you cant control that unless you purchase advantage selective then you can hit who you want within your are limitation you have to hit target's dcv instead of the hex's 3 dcv I could go on and on but it's pointless because in the end the pro's out way the con's and that's why its classified as advantage.

 

But people will always find something to nit pick over and claim how they could have done it better! I'm one who believes if you can make it better do so otherwise accept what you have.

 

 

If you read my post you will doubtless note that I am simply expressing a preference not suggesting that the system is wrong, or that I could do it better.

 

I'm not sure I agree there are pros and cons to everything. I mean, I can't see any advantage to, say, activation rolls, except the point saving. I'm saying you could design advantages and limitations so that they are somewhat more limited in individual scope, allowing you to group several to create exactly the effect you want, and minimise the advantages of limitations and limitations of advantages. Mind you, as tesuji points out, ease of use is an important consideration, and charges as presented fill probably the majority of current uses...and you can buy charges that cost END if you want to. I suppose it is a balancing exercise, and we can argue all day about whether the balance is adjusted just so...and then we will probably discover we are talking about dfferent balance points anyway

[Robyn]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

I'm not sure I agree there are pros and cons to everything. I mean' date=' I can't see any advantage to, say, activation rolls, except the point saving.[/quote']

 

Funny you should say that ; I've already posted quite the rebuttal!

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Well' date=' I know that the rules aren't a science and all but I seems to me that how limiting (or benefiting) charges is depends heavily on the game, when we play supers we oftenly go through 2-3 fights each session (I bet that is about how often ye are supposed to do it), but in some settings (I don't know what) it can seems possible that you play ~10 fights each day, in that case the charges limitation would not be worth it (wich could make it harder to create a fun-to-play character with your concept). About how many times do you think charges is balanced to be used? (wow, that was messy (and uninteresting)).[/quote']

This is certainly a good point. IMO, GMs should feel free to adjust the Charges table to reflect the expected number of times per day that powers will be used. Currently, 16 charges is +/-0, but also give 0 END. So the assumption is that most powers will often be needed more than 16 times per day. The "Limitation" of only 16 times, offsets the advantage of 0 END. I'll admit, this usually seems a little high to me. If you like, you could simply shift the table up or down according to your campaign, or modify it in other ways. It really isn't that tough. As a PIDOOMA excersize, how 'bout this:

 

Charges Limitation

1 -3

2 -2

3 -1.5

4 -1.25

5 -1

6 -0.75

7-8 -0.5

9-10 -0.25

11-12 -0

13-16 +0.25

17-20 +0.5

21-30 +0.75

31 or more +1

 

for example. OTOH, if in your campaign, powers need to be used a lot more, you can adjust the table the other way.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

In general' date=' I think it would be better "design" to have charges be simply disadvantageous. have it be a simple cap on "uses per time" and if its appropriate for that to also be "0 end" then you buy +1/2 "0 end". That is a cleaner model, IMO.[/quote']

I agree! Another possibility would be to let the Reduced END Advantage apply towards cancelling out the Charges Limitation. For example, if you want 12 Charges (-1/4), and 0 END (+1/2), you simply apply (-1/4 + +1/2 = ) +1/4 Advantage.

 

Either way also ends the hose of having to pay the same price for charges for powers that are already 0 END. Which is a good thing, IMO. I use a house rule that powers that are 0 END by default get an extra -1/2 from the charges limitation. For example Life Support that can only be used 16 times (one phase each) per day would be a -1/2 Limitation (rather than a -0).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

RE Charge cost arguments - Depends, really: if you are buying charges for an autofire weapon, you are going to get through them pretty quick: a SPD 6 character with autofire/5 can get through 30 charges in one turn. Reduced END looks like the smarter buy.

 

Even depends on what you are going to use the power for: an emergency escape teleporter probably only gets used once per session anyway, at most, so arguably even its '1 charge' does not limit the power in any real sense.

 

Mind you this way lies only madness: you can come up with endless examples of situations in which charges are good or poor value.

[Lucius]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

I agree! Another possibility would be to let the Reduced END Advantage apply towards cancelling out the Charges Limitation. For example, if you want 12 Charges (-1/4), and 0 END (+1/2), you simply apply (-1/4 + +1/2 = ) +1/4 Advantage.

 

Either way also ends the hose of having to pay the same price for charges for powers that are already 0 END. Which is a good thing, IMO. I use a house rule that powers that are 0 END by default get an extra -1/2 from the charges limitation. For example Life Support that can only be used 16 times (one phase each) per day would be a -1/2 Limitation (rather than a -0).

 

Me too! I’m not bothered so much that Charges don’t cost END (you can always put the further limit on so they do) – I’m bothered that Charges has the same value whether you’re getting the benefit of losing the END cost or not.

 

Even depends on what you are going to use the power for: an emergency escape teleporter probably only gets used once per session anyway, at most, so arguably even its '1 charge' does not limit the power in any real sense.

 

Mind you this way lies only madness: you can come up with endless examples of situations in which charges are good or poor value.

 

Uhh….that’s because if it didn’t have the limitation, it wouldn’t BE “an emergency escape teleport.” It would be “jump around the battlefield when I want to teleport.”

 

That’s kind of like saying a Focus limitation doesn’t limit a gun because OF COURSE a gun can be taken away or broken….

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Recharging a palindromedary

[Outsider]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

As to charges on powers that don't cost END anyway... I usually take "Takes END (-1/2)" on the power -then- apply the charges limitation.

[Tauman.EXE]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Thanx for the replies, it really helps in understanding the system.

 

Well about the reduced endurance suggestion:

It does make sense, actully a lot of already existing power already work in this way. Damage shield has to be bought with continous advantage as an example.

 

Also it seems to me that charges limitation is much more effective if used together with different power pools, and the neccecarity of raising the active points to get reduced endurance would kinda counter this. Meh, I don't have much experience so I don't really know.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

............................

 

Uhh….that’s because if it didn’t have the limitation, it wouldn’t BE “an emergency escape teleport.” It would be “jump around the battlefield when I want to teleport.”

 

That’s kind of like saying a Focus limitation doesn’t limit a gun because OF COURSE a gun can be taken away or broken….

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Recharging a palindromedary

 

 

 

I have to concede that you do have a point there

 

To explain a bit better though, teleport is not as useful a power for some characters as others and is generally not as useful in combat as other movement powers because of the limitations it has - can't add velocity damage being the main one.

 

A 'brick' type character who will largely just stand in the middle of the combat and swing - or a sniper who hangs way back and rarely moves is going to get little utility even from an unlimited teleport power - the only time they are likely to need a movement power is if things go badly and they want to get the hell out of dodge - so having one or two charges is not going to change how the power is used. As such it is not as much of a limitation for that type of character as it might be for others.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

I seem to recall some old rule from a previous edition of Champions where charges assigned to a power in a multipower slot only gave you half the normal number of charges for the limitation. Was this actually in a previous edition, or am I confusing it with a previous game's house rules?

 

For the record, I liked that rule...

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

I remember reading about that Charge rule 'way back in Champions III, pre-Fourth Edition. I liked that rule myself, and still use a variant of it - it makes for benefits and drawbacks between buying X Charges for an entire Multipower, and X Charges for each of the slots in a MP, while under canon Fifth Edition the second choice is unquestionably mechanically superior.

 

In my case I move the number of Charges one step down the Limitations value chart when applied to a slot, e.g. 12 Charges is -0, 8 Charges is -1/4, etc. I've seen several other posters here remark that they do the same.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

To explain a bit better though' date=' teleport is not as useful a power for some characters as others and is generally not as useful in combat as other movement powers because of the limitations it has - can't add velocity damage being the main one.[/quote']

 

The same could be said of many powers. An Energy Blast is less useful to a character who has other attack options than to one who has only one attack of significance, for example.

 

A 'brick' type character who will largely just stand in the middle of the combat and swing

 

Could be far more effective if he could Teleport freely about the battlefield to strike targets staying out of ramge of his fists.

 

- or a sniper who hangs way back and rarely moves

 

Could use an unlimited Teleport to kep swicthing vanatge points, making it very dificult for his opponents to ever even locate him.

 

is going to get little utility even from an unlimited teleport power - the only time they are likely to need a movement power is if things go badly and they want to get the hell out of dodge - so having one or two charges is not going to change how the power is used. As such it is not as much of a limitation for that type of character as it might be for others.

 

But the fact they cannot use it frequently forces them to husband its use even when it might be beneficial to use it more frequently.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

I remember reading about that Charge rule 'way back in Champions III' date=' pre-Fourth Edition.[/quote']

 

Wasn't that also the time when each level of Reduced END only cut the END cost in half, and to make a power cost no END you had to buy it enough times to make the END cost <= 0.5? It got expensive back then to make a Zero END power. And IIRC, some powers cost 1 END per 5 Active Points as well.

 

I liked that rule myself, and still use a variant of it - it makes for benefits and drawbacks between buying X Charges for an entire Multipower, and X Charges for each of the slots in a MP, while under canon Fifth Edition the second choice is unquestionably mechanically superior.

 

In my case I move the number of Charges one step down the Limitations value chart when applied to a slot, e.g. 12 Charges is -0, 8 Charges is -1/4, etc. I've seen several other posters here remark that they do the same.

 

I don't see the point of 'gimping' the value of a limitation on a power that is in a Multipower (barring silly end-runs using Limited Power). A 60 Active Point standard slot with 8 Charges(-1/2) will save the character a whopping 4 points because it's a slot and not it's own power or the Reserve. Thus IMO the full value of the 8 Charges limitation is valid considering the small point savings.