Active Points and effect on Endurance

[slaughterj]

The Active Points of a power are the basis for the END cost of a power in the Hero System. Active Points are the Base Points for power purchased, modified by the Advantages on a power. However, while a few Advantages such as Area Effect sensically increase END, many of the Advantages do not make sense to be a basis for increasing the END cost of a power. Some examples which do not make sense:

- Personal Immunity: one happens to be immune to their own power, but this takes more effort??

- Variable Advantage / Variable Special Effects: one's power is flexible, so it take more effort to use??

- Affects Real World: the ability for the ghost to use its chilling touch is incredibly difficult??

- Armor Piercing: my laser fist is scalpel-like in its penetrative ability, so I it takes more work for me to use it??

 

While it would make things more complex to say that only certain advantages required increased END (which also gets into the complexity of an advantage and limitation wrapped together), and while restructuring all Advantages to not result in increased END would be arduous and mathematically problematic (because of issues of granularity), it seems there must be some sort of reasonable solution to this - any suggestions? Perhaps the easiest fix would be to say that END is based on the Base Points of a power, but for a specific list of advantages which increase the END for the power - this would also line up with the 5e exception for the Reduced END advantage which was long needed.

 

[This has been a long-running issue of mine, but really hits home when I try to create certain spells which have inordinate AP compared with their effect, resulting in prohibitive END costs to use, even if END was halved.]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Active Points and effect on Endurance

 

Originally posted by slaughterj

The Active Points of a power are the basis for the END cost of a power in the Hero System. Active Points are the Base Points for power purchased, modified by the Advantages on a power. However, while a few Advantages such as Area Effect sensically increase END, many of the Advantages do not make sense to be a basis for increasing the END cost of a power.

 

The problem ios that not everyone will agree which advantages "logically" increase the END cost. For example:

 

Originally posted by slaughterj

- Affects Real World: the ability for the ghost to use its chilling touch is incredibly difficult??

 

The ghost must transmit its power across dimensions from its own near unreal state to the real world - why shouldn't this take more effort?

 

There is also the issue of increased efficiency. Want to pay less END, but not reduced by half or eliminated entirely? Link the power to a "Heal END". Make it 0 END and take a Susceptibility that reduces END.

[Jeff]

Funny, I've always been annoyed with how you have to figure END costs before the active points for the Reduced END advantage itself, or the area of an area effect power based on active points absent that advantage. It'd be so much simpler not to have to track different effective active point totals.

[zornwil]

FWIW, I have always done END as based on BASE points. I do feel as this post starts that some advantages make sense for increased END and some don't. Implementing that gets way too complex, though, and I adopted for the OTHER evil of saying none of them increase END. But then again, I still charge 5 points = 1 END, but the current Reduced END/Costs no END advantages are the same cost as in 4th/5th. The combo seems to work for my purposes; it essentaily allows characters to be pretty easily built to get around END by spending a reasonable number of points or to not spend those points and elect to deal with END.

[badger3k]

Although to me its mainly a game balance issue, most of the advantages costing END makes can make sense to me. Let's look at an Energy Blast for example. Doesn't it make sense that a straight energy blast would cost one thing (in terms of personal energy), an explosive blast that spreads more energy out, and an energy blast in which you spend some energy to shield yourself (personal immunity) cost more. That assumes the same base d6 in effects, of course.

 

Now as to 'is it actually balanced', that is tricky. I think the END cost of advantages was used to keep people from buying powers with lots of advantages and using them wildly (i.e. buying an area effect EB and paying the same in END terms as one without the advantage). On the one hand, the extra cost of the advantage in character points works to keep the overall character balanced, while the END is used as an in-game balancer. At least thats my view. Does it work out that way? That all depends on who you ask - everyone has a view on that.

 

As a player and GM, I've often disliked the active cost/END rules, but I've basically followed them. Reduced END is cheap enough that I normally don't worry about it.

[tesuji]

Well, as the replies show, its a matter of FX.

 

If the Eb immunity is an active shield sort of thing, as one guy suggested, and not just a funky natural immunity, then it should be end costing.

 

if the ghost can use its chilling touch on ethereal targets with ease but has to exert itself to reach across the veil and strike earthly targets, it makes sense.

 

rather than adopt the first instinctive hero approach, make things cheaper, what about simply buying off the end cost for those abilities you want to be natural?

 

So for our ghost, if reaching across the veil was no effort, then buy (maybe as a naked advantage?) 0 end on the +2 ARW points. thus the chilling touch always costs end but there is no extra cost for the ARW advantage in terms of end, so either ethereal or earthly targets cost the same.

 

If Jimmy Bob wants to be immune to his EB for no effort, and even while asleep, he can buy 0 end persistent on the +1/4 worth of points for his EB. heck, if its truly natural he could buy it as inherent, unable to be suppressed. may seem a bit much but when a mimic duplicates his EB, he may well be glad that immunity is still working when the rest of his defenses are down, huh?

 

So, apply the reduced endurance only to the Aps of the advantages you want to eliminate the end for and you seem to have solved your problem within the rules as they stand now.

[Rene]

This problem don't surface only with spells. When you try to write-up some supercharacters, like Susan Richards, you get monstrous END costs (Invisible Power Effects, Indirect, etc.).

 

Tesuji's suggestion is completely legal, and maybe the right way to go about it, but still seems a bit clumsy to write in the character sheet all the Advantages that themselves have Advantages...

[Stone]

Originally posted by badger3k

Although to me its mainly a game balance issue, most of the advantages costing END makes can make sense to me. Let's look at an Energy Blast for example. Doesn't it make sense that a straight energy blast would cost one thing (in terms of personal energy), an explosive blast that spreads more energy out, and an energy blast in which you spend some energy to shield yourself (personal immunity) cost more.

 

The ability already cost more since the PC had to spend the points on the advantage. This extra cost will reduce the overall effect of the ability. the Base cost of the ability/power should be used to determine END cost. This works well especially in campaigns with power limits.

 

I fail to see why a weapon/focus with armor piercing cost more END to swing, than a weapon without armor piercing (in champions). To me, this makes no sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Stone

The ability already cost more since the PC had to spend the points on the advantage. This extra cost will reduce the overall effect of the ability. the Base cost of the ability/power should be used to determine END cost. This works well especially in campaigns with power limits.

 

Sounds great for my 4d6 AVLD Area Effect Personal immunity Variable Special Effect Energy Blast. Not so great for the guy who just bought a straight 17d6 EB for the same points.

 

Note that it also costs less to reduce END on an advantaged power than one which was purchased without advantages at the same AP. A 4d6 Area EFfect NND costs 5 points to reduce END to 1/2. A 12d6 EB (same points) costs 15 points, three times as much, to halve the END.

 

The simple game balance rule is that a more powerful (whether in terms of raw power, versatility or any other advantage) costs more END.

 

Originally posted by Stone

I fail to see why a weapon/focus with armor piercing cost more END to swing, than a weapon without armor piercing (in champions).

 

I fail to see why carefully focusing your Energy Blast to a tight beam to maximize its penetrating power, or exert8ing your power to fill a vast area rather than firing off a narrow beam, would not require greater exertion, so we're even.

 

Originally posted by Stone

To me, this makes no sense.

 

OK, we're in Champions. So super powered aliens, men worshipped as gods, women who turn invisible and project solid walls of energy, etc. etc. - that all makes sense to you, but the END cost on advantages is just too much?

 

The bottom line is that it's a game. It's also a game that simulates things that [cover the eyes and ears of small children here], then scroll down

 

 

here it comes

 

a game that simulates things that DO NOT EXIST!

 

Since superpowers (or magic spells or what have you) do not exist, it's pretty tough to try and argue that the game fails to simulate them "realistically". Simulating them makes it unrealistic all by itself! That leaves us to imagine whether any given power construct should cost more END, less END or no END. And we bring that imagination to the game by payment of points if we want an advantage such as a lower endurance cost.

 

We could, alternatively, imagine that these powers would not carry a cost to the user, and toss out the END rules entirely. Perhaps it is only "realistic" if superpowers carry no END cost. After all, I've never seen anyone tired out from flying under his own power, surrounding himself in flames or calling lightning bolts from the sky. Have you?

 

But I do know END is a great balencer - if you want all those tactical advantages, it takes a toll on the character, which limits his ability to use them. Unless he shells out the points to lower the costs. This is balanced by not having those points available for other uses.

 

At the end of the day, it's not about realism. It's about the game effect you want to create. If you want to encourage way more advantages, make them END-free and that will help in your goal. If you think advantages are point balanced the way they are, let those who want them to be effortless pay the points for that ADDED advantage.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

OK, we're in Champions. So super powered aliens, men worshipped as gods, women who turn invisible and project solid walls of energy, etc. etc. - that all makes sense to you, but the END cost on advantages is just too much?

 

The bottom line is that it's a game. It's also a game that simulates things that [cover the eyes and ears of small children here], then scroll down

 

 

here it comes

 

a game that simulates things that DO NOT EXIST!

 

Since superpowers (or magic spells or what have you) do not exist, it's pretty tough to try and argue that the game fails to simulate them "realistically". Simulating them makes it unrealistic all by itself! That leaves us to imagine whether any given power construct should cost more END, less END or no END. And we bring that imagination to the game by payment of points if we want an advantage such as a lower endurance cost.

 

That's always such a weak argument approach to take, and I see it from time to time on rpg boards. Just because there are fantastic elements, doesn't mean that some reality shouldn't get injected. Trying to stab someone with an AP stiletto as opposed to a knife (each with the same base DC) shouldn't involve a difference in END spent. It's that simple. Perhaps the AP advantage should be bought to 0 END, and perhaps the others ones should also be bought to 0 END, but with several advantages so bought, it soon exceeds the cost of simply buying the entire power at 0 END, making the exercise pointless or at least showing off a problem in the system.

[Rene]

Originally posted by slaughterj

That's always such a weak argument approach to take, and I see it from time to time on rpg boards. Just because there are fantastic elements, doesn't mean that some reality shouldn't get injected. Trying to stab someone with an AP stiletto as opposed to a knife (each with the same base DC) shouldn't involve a difference in END spent.

 

It doesn't. All normal weapons are bought with the 0 END Cost Advantage. You only pay END for the STR used with them. There aren't many real-life examples of power construction that cost END.

 

In the end, I think I'll have to agree with Hugh. If you want to talk superpowers making sense, the only "sense" is that of the fictional works where they're depicted.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Rene

It doesn't. All normal weapons are bought with the 0 END Cost Advantage. You only pay END for the STR used with them. There aren't many real-life examples of power construction that cost END.

 

In the end, I think I'll have to agree with Hugh. If you want to talk superpowers making sense, the only "sense" is that of the fictional works where they're depicted.

 

I was simply going with the example provided earlier [sigh] Work with me here

[Rene]

Originally posted by slaughterj

I was simply going with the example provided earlier [sigh] Work with me here

 

Well, for what it's worth, I kinda of agree with you that it seems excessive that the Invisible Woman has to pay 20 END per shot to use her Indirect Invisible EB. And some spells have an obscene END Cost for what they do.

 

It would be cool if HERO had a rule like that:

 

Any Advantage that is "always on" never costs END. Any Advantage that can be switched on and off at will (and doing so constitutes a benefit for the character) costs END.

 

For instance, if you had Area of Effect and you couldn't ever switch it off, it don't cost END, it's just a part of the Base Power. Now, if you can "concentrate" enough to turn off the Area Effect and affect only one target, then you must pay END to use the Area Effect, because it's an effort to manipulate it.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Rene

Well, for what it's worth, I kinda of agree with you that it seems excessive that the Invisible Woman has to pay 20 END per shot to use her Indirect Invisible EB. And some spells have an obscene END Cost for what they do.

 

It would be cool if HERO had a rule like that:

 

Any Advantage that is "always on" never costs END. Any Advantage that can be switched on and off at will (and doing so constitutes a benefit for the character) costs END.

 

For instance, if you had Area of Effect and you couldn't ever switch it off, it don't cost END, it's just a part of the Base Power. Now, if you can "concentrate" enough to turn off the Area Effect and affect only one target, then you must pay END to use the Area Effect, because it's an effort to manipulate it.

 

Now that would be really good, especially because it would allow people to buy the Area Effect attack, but elect whether to use the Advantage, rather than buying two separate constructs. This is something good in MnM BTW.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Rene

It doesn't. All normal weapons are bought with the 0 END Cost Advantage. You only pay END for the STR used with them. There aren't many real-life examples of power construction that cost END.

 

In the end, I think I'll have to agree with Hugh. If you want to talk superpowers making sense, the only "sense" is that of the fictional works where they're depicted.

 

I would add that they should make sense by internal game logic. Under the Hero System, that internal logic includes paying more points for a power that is more effective (in general, even if more limited in some circumstances), and paying more END for such powers.

 

From a "game fairness" perspective, I don't believe that Character A should be able to file his 60 AP EB 50% more often than Character B simply because A has 8d6 AP and B has 12d6 with no advantages. The present rules cost them each 6 END per shot. This change would reduce AP Man to 4 END per shot, at no points cost. Why should he get something for nothing?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by slaughterj

Now that would be really good, especially because it would allow people to buy the Area Effect attack, but elect whether to use the Advantage, rather than buying two separate constructs. This is something good in MnM BTW.

 

But that's the crux of the issue. Why wouldn't Area Effect normally cost more endurance than a single shot with no area when the energy is disbursed over a greater area? If I have a 6d6 EB Area Effect, wouldn't that normally epend more energy and endurance than a 6d6 EB with no Area Effect? You don't turn the Area Effect advantage off anyway, once you buy it, remember an advantage may have some variability built-in but you can't normally just shut the advantage totally off. If you want to use less END, just shoot a lower spray.

 

Now you (and I) might think that a 6d6 power is the same END whether with Area or not. But my point is that it's in the eye of the beholder, and I could very easily envision it either way. HERO could have provided a standard "costs END/does not cost END" per advantage but elected not to, I presume, for both balance and complexity. Balance because in theory anything with more gusto to it should have some corresponding END impact (a 6d6 AP EB is still more powerful than a 6d6 non-AP EB). Complexity because breaking it out for each advantage costs more.

 

In theory, the cost of the advantage should take into account it is also bumping up END. If you say some advantages do not cost END, perhaps the advantage should cost a bit more?

 

I have no problem with the idea, I just think it's complex enough and potentially unbalancing enough that it constitutes a deviation from the rules and I would not propose changing the core rules to suit that.

 

Now, similarly, I would argue, why wouldn't limitations decrease END required? But I must assume here that it's a balance issue given what that would mean in pushing END costs even lower.

 

I might try it out myself and change my system from 1 END/5 base to the standard if I throw out enough advantages and include enough limitations that would not cost and would cost END respectively.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by slaughterj

That's always such a weak argument approach to take, and I see it from time to time on rpg boards. Just because there are fantastic elements, doesn't mean that some reality shouldn't get injected. Trying to stab someone with an AP stiletto as opposed to a knife (each with the same base DC) shouldn't involve a difference in END spent. It's that simple. Perhaps the AP advantage should be bought to 0 END, and perhaps the others ones should also be bought to 0 END, but with several advantages so bought, it soon exceeds the cost of simply buying the entire power at 0 END, making the exercise pointless or at least showing off a problem in the system.

 

Funny...the weak argument I always see trotted out is "this isn't realistic" when what it really means is "I don't want the in-game checks and balances to apply to my character, so let's come up with an example where it's not realistic".

 

If you don't want the AP stiletto to cost extra END (or any END at all), buy it "reduced END" or "zero END". The game provides a reasonably clear in-game mechanic to eliminate the END cost where it is appropriate to the power in question that the advantage cost no END.

 

Since the halfway point in +1/4, I would consider allowing a character to buy a +1/4 advantage that "only base power costs END" (no worse, really, than "only costs END to activate). Alternatively, buy the Advantage 0 END. But you don't get the same power level at less END for free.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Rene

It would be cool if HERO had a rule like that:

 

Any Advantage that is "always on" never costs END. Any Advantage that can be switched on and off at will (and doing so constitutes a benefit for the character) costs END.

 

For instance, if you had Area of Effect and you couldn't ever switch it off, it don't cost END, it's just a part of the Base Power. Now, if you can "concentrate" enough to turn off the Area Effect and affect only one target, then you must pay END to use the Area Effect, because it's an effort to manipulate it.

 

So can I buy a 4d6 EB, and buy a +3 custom advantage called "Quadruple Dice" so I roll up to 16d6, but only pay END for one die in four? After all. advantages don't cost END, right?

 

Why should my ExtraPowerful EB cost extra END? Friendly Fire's blast covers an area at no extra END. Captain Stiletto's attacks pierces armor at no extra END. LightMan has a 4d6 AVLD Flash Defense, Area Effect (4x radius) and pays 2 END at full power. My attack has the "High Impact" advantage, so it does 4x as many dice. Why should I have to pay END on my advantage when no one else does?

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

So can I buy a 4d6 EB, and buy a +3 custom advantage called "Quadruple Dice" so I roll up to 16d6, but only pay END for one die in four? After all. advantages don't cost END, right?

 

Why should my ExtraPowerful EB cost extra END? Friendly Fire's blast covers an area at no extra END. Captain Stiletto's attacks pierces armor at no extra END. LightMan has a 4d6 AVLD Flash Defense, Area Effect (4x radius) and pays 2 END at full power. My attack has the "High Impact" advantage, so it does 4x as many dice. Why should I have to pay END on my advantage when no one else does?

 

If I were you, I'd take a +12 Advantage on 1d6 EB instead

 

Rene was offering up a possible solution for discussion, but I'm sure the slam is appreciated.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by slaughterj

If I were you, I'd take a +12 Advantage on 1d6 EB instead

 

Rene was offering up a possible solution for discussion, but I'm sure the slam is appreciated.

 

I considered it (it would be +11 to equate the costs at a 12d6 EB, +15 to get a 16d6 EB).

 

No slam was intended, however. To my mind, advantages cost END, as well as character points, because they make the power more useful. If they didn't make it more useful, they wouldn't cost points or END.

 

if the guy whose power is armor piercing, AVLD, NND, area effect, or what have you gets those advantages at no END cost, why shouldn't the the guy who takes the "advantage" of Nothing Special Just More Dice not be eligible for a similar break in END.

 

After all, how realistic is it that all types of energy blasts cost 1 END per 2d6? Everyone knows it's much easier to emit nuclear radiation than fire off a water blast, right?

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

After all, how realistic is it that all types of energy blasts cost 1 END per 2d6? Everyone knows it's much easier to emit nuclear radiation than fire off a water blast, right?

 

Geez, everybody knows that! First you're mean, now you state the obvious?!

[zornwil]

I suppose in some part this issue is related to the fact that END is lumped into the system somewhat uncomfortably as opposed to being a raw building block; in other words, some powers automatically cost END, others don't. We don't have a system with everything not including END and you purchase that as an add-on. I'm not complaining, just thinking aloud about the crux of the END issue.

[slaughterj]

Perhaps Personal Immunity should be covered by Life Suport rather than as an advantage...

[Captain Obvious]

I think tesuji's method is the way to go. If you feel that the added END cost for a given power construct due to advantages is too much, buy a naked advantage to reduce the END cost of that advantage.

 

When I first looked at this thread, I thought of something similar, but a lot kludgier. Tesuji's way should work well.

 

Of course that means it costs more points for that power, but honestly, in most cases it costs more because it's worth more. (Personal Immunity on most standard attacks may not be worth as much as it costs...I can see that easily, but it also depends on the attack itself and the game world).

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

I think tesuji's method is the way to go. If you feel that the added END cost for a given power construct due to advantages is too much, buy a naked advantage to reduce the END cost of that advantage.

 

When I first looked at this thread, I thought of something similar, but a lot kludgier. Tesuji's way should work well.

 

Of course that means it costs more points for that power, but honestly, in most cases it costs more because it's worth more. (Personal Immunity on most standard attacks may not be worth as much as it costs...I can see that easily, but it also depends on the attack itself and the game world).

 

I think Tesuji's method is the correct method under the system, however I'm questioning some of the system's methods of handling things themselves. As for Tesuji's method, here's my specific issue with it (separate from my general concern here):

 

10D6 EB, 50pts

- Area Effect (+1), 50pts

- Area Effect at 0 END (+1/2), 25pts

 

Making the above, where the advantage is 0 END but not the base power, costs just as much as making the whole power 0 END. Add more 0 END advantages makes the situation even worse...