Reduced Endurance and Active Points Caps (Thread Split)

[Marcus]

Split off of the Replacements thread, to avoid stepping on someone else's topic.

 

Short summary: Do you weigh 'reduced endurance' on attack powers, when considering the Active Point Cap? Or are you of the "Damage Classes" subset, who weigh attacks only by the advantages that affect how they do damage? If the second, are there any advantages which, even so, you look at more carefully/weigh differently than others?

 

Propositions:

1.) Active Point Caps/Damage Class Weighings turn many 'Advantages' into things that make powers Not Worth Using.

2.) Specifically, taking reduced endurance into the calculation of how much damage a player may do with an attack unintentionally favors certain SFX.

3.) Our perception of problems with the cost of certain advantages has been dulled by Multipowers, which cause powers to be bought that would not otherwise.

4.) Similarly, the commonality of Active Point Caps and Active-Point-Cap Multipowers has resulted in many Champions players building "effects that match the points" rather than "points that match the effect".

 

Random Junk:

The question came up because a given character was over active point cap on one of his attacks, due to take the attack 0 END. Some GMs weighed in, saying that they do think 0 END should count towards AP cap, because of its other effects.

 

It seems to me that if we weigh reduced end/0 END towards active point caps, we are simply telling players that they are to buy END reserves, or attack slots in a multipower with some version of +0 Charges (16 Charges, less charges with clips, etc.). This has the unintended consequence of rewarding certain special effects that lend themselves to end reserves, or especially charges and foci.

 

Now, I will grant that (as a GM) I DO pay attention to END usage, and Mr. Goes-All-Day Energize Bunny will, in my games, all other things being equally, usually end up a DC or two under Mr. Counts-every-end-like candy. Thats only fair.

 

But does anyone have any players that would intentionally choose to be an 8 Dice Energy Blaster in a 12 Dice Game, rather than a 12 dice energy blaster with charges, an end reserve, or just good END/REC/etc? And I mean their 'primary attack' as a 0 END attack...

 

Similarly, we have advantages such as AOE. For +1, you can buy an attack that, essentially, doesn't work on supers. Its a great agent-buster, and thats a good reason to include it in a multipower, etc, but noone will ever take an AOE attack as one of their major attacks... which suggests that whatever you get for that +1, you give up more than you get.

 

Thats an interesting thought.. I wonder if Multipowers have dulled our weighing of advantages, etc. Most multipowers I've seen have a big 'vanilla' attack, because those are ALMOST ALWAYS BETTER for their active points than anything that is disadvantages by having an advantage put on it. Then, they spend a handful of points here and there for 'niche' attacks.. something AOE, something LOS/NRP, something continuous... all useful in the right place and time, but something that your just not likely to ever take as a full-cost power in an active point cap game.

 

I mention AOE, Continuous, and the like, because most GMs WILL weigh those against not just Active Points, but Damage Classes.. and again, being the 6 dice blaster in the 12 dice game is even less appealing than being the 12 dice blaster... and god help you if its a 0 END AOE... 4.5 dice?

 

This has gotten disjointed, and should NOT be interpreted as a criticism of how anyone runs their games! I'm just curious as to peoples thoughts/comments.

[Vulcan]

Re: Reduced Endurance and Active Points Caps (Thread Split)

 

For a MP, the answer pretty much takes care of itself. The additional attacks are pretty cheap, so having the niche attacks is an advanage in and of itself. If it isn't useful most of the time, so what? You've likely got 3-5 other slots you can use.

 

The issue comes up when the character has one attack power. Period. And it's a nifty one, but under strict AP caps, it winds up being so low dice it's not worth bothering with. So the player goes back and redesigns the character into something more mundane, but more effective.

 

Which, in my opinion, is tragic. The neat concept is discarded in favor of efficiency.

 

AEH is one of the big sufferers here. In a 60 point game, 6d6 isn't going to do more than annoy most targets. And Double KB only reaches 7d6 at 61 points. Even if the GM lets the one point slide, it's still only marginally useful (the KB damage is going to average 7d6 as well, so it really is only good as a setup power). NND has a big advantage over the others here, in that 6d6 past defenses is a pretty good lump of damage. 8d6 AP is pretty useful, 8d6 Penetrating is marginal at best (6d6 NND is better under most circumstances). 8d6 AF works ok on low DEF (which take more damage per hit) or low DCV (which take more hits).

 

AP caps and DC caps are useful tools for general game balancing. But the GM needs to be willing to bend a bit for the "One and only one attack capability" concepts. Or 'One BIG one and some lesser ones" (one above general limits, and the rest significantly under...).

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Reduced Endurance and Active Points Caps (Thread Split)

 

I don't use Active Point caps, I use Damage Class caps for attack powers. As Reduced END doesn't affect Damage Class ... well, there ya go.

[QueenOfItAll]

Re: Reduced Endurance and Active Points Caps (Thread Split)

 

My GM gave up on AP Caps for this very reason. As well, DC Caps did not work very well.

 

My GM's idea: Base Point HARD Caps, Active Points Guidelines with "trade off". I.e., you could have a Power with an AP higher than the Guideline if you had another Power with an AP lower by the same amount, if the GM agreed. It is not necessary for the Powers to be related whatsomever, though being related can help.