Active Points and effect on Endurance

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by 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.

 

This is an excellent point - one which I find is highlighted when one looks at Aid and Healing. Two variants of the same ability, and only one costs END

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by slaughterj

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...

 

There's a breakkpoint at which buying 1/2 END for the power as a whole would be less expensive. Or you could be REALLY kludgy and add a Linked END Healing with standard effect to get the exact END reduction you're looking for.

[Stone]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

Ok, this is not intended as a slam....

 

If you want to waste points on buying a 4d6 attack with all those advantages, be my guest. Yes it will make that very effective on several different types of targets, however I think the 17d6 attack is far more effective.

 

The point I was trying to make is that the cost of the advantage itself will limit the overall impact of the power. I realize this is a game and the mechanics are trying to simulate things that do not exists. I simply disagree with the way the END cost are generate.

 

As for your example of the EB with armor piercing, considering the fact the PC pays a +1/2 cost for the ability, seems to me the power already cost more. The same PC could have a 10d6 EB with armor piercing or a 15d6 EB. Both can be very devestating. My point is that the powers cost the same.

 

By forcing PC's to buy reduced END to counter the increased END cost on other advantages, you will end up a PC that can use a power several times, but will less impact. The power would be good for agent level to minor super level villians, but not very effective against equal level villians. If the concern about END is an issue of game balance, then I think this clearly points out unbalanced the mechanics can be.

 

As with any system/rule, I realize my "home rule" can be abused. Thats my job as a GM to prevent it from being abused. The current system also can be abused.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Stone

Ok, this is not intended as a slam....

 

I'm fairly thick skinned (thick headed? )

 

Originally posted by Stone

If you want to waste points on buying a 4d6 attack with all those advantages, be my guest. Yes it will make that very effective on several different types of targets, however I think the 17d6 attack is far more effective.

 

Depends. Vs. master villain? You bet! vs Orecish (or agent) Army? Not likely - 14 STUN, no DEF, on everyone within about 50 feet - and only 2 END per phase? With NCM, a 4 SPD and 8 REC mean I can do this all day. A super with 6 SPD only needs 12 REC.

 

I'll confess I toploaded the advantages, though. 6d6 NND radius would work pretty good too, though. Hits every time (DCV 3 and I need to miss by 3 before he's out of my radius). Gets 21 STUN on average (unless he has the defense - always a concern). 18d6 EB is pretty good too (63 on average), but it has to roll to hit and deal with defenses. Who's better? Depends whether you're fighting Mighty Guy who has the defense or SuperMartialArtist, with his 18 DCV and no unusual defenses!

 

Originally posted by Stone

The point I was trying to make is that the cost of the advantage itself will limit the overall impact of the power. I realize this is a game and the mechanics are trying to simulate things that do not exists. I simply disagree with the way the END cost are generate.

 

I believe END costs for advantages are appropriate. They are advanhtageous - if they are properly priced, the END should be worth it. Let's turn that around.

 

My 4d6 excessive advantages 85 point power costs 2 END per phase. You can have a 13d6 EB that costs the same END for 85 points [5d6 full end + 8d6 no END = 85; 9d6 half END + 4d6 no END - more than 85]. Are they equally effective?

 

Move on to my radius NND - I pay 3 END. At 90 points, you can have a 14d6 EB (12 d6 1/2 END + 2d6 no END) to equate.

 

Originally posted by Stone

As for your example of the EB with armor piercing, considering the fact the PC pays a +1/2 cost for the ability, seems to me the power already cost more. The same PC could have a 10d6 EB with armor piercing or a 15d6 EB. Both can be very devestating. My point is that the powers cost the same.

 

But to cost the same END under your system, that's a 13d6+1 EB, not 15d6. How comparable are they now? [Pretty comparable, actually - AP only really works at high DEF] 10d6 averages 35 STUN, 13d6+1 46.5 and 15d6 52.5. Breakpoint DEF is about 23 in your system, 35 in the full end for advantages structure.

 

Originally posted by Stone

By forcing PC's to buy reduced END to counter the increased END cost on other advantages, you will end up a PC that can use a power several times, but will less impact. The power would be good for agent level to minor super level villians, but not very effective against equal level villians. If the concern about END is an issue of game balance, then I think this clearly points out unbalanced the mechanics can be.

 

Turning that around, your system forces those without advantages on their powers to buy reduced END to last - again, more uses equals less impact. Let's look at 60 AP. You can have a 6d6 NND [21 STUN unless they have the defense), an 8d6 AP blast (average roll 28) or 12d6 (42) in the usual rules. To get the same END, however, it's only a 10d6 EB . [6d6 + 4d6 No End costs 60 for NND 3 END). Is 10d6 normal even with 8d6 AP or 6d6 NND? [OK, 10 1/2 d6 to equalize with AP]

 

Let's go another way. Under your system, I can take a 6d6 NND EB at double END and pay 40 character points (6 END per shot). I can have 8d6 AP at double END [8 per shot] for 40 points. A 10d6 EB, last six dice will costing 2x END, will cost 8 END and 40 points. Comparable? I think the Advantages hold the advantages under your system.

 

Originally posted by Stone

As with any system/rule, I realize my "home rule" can be abused. Thats my job as a GM to prevent it from being abused. The current system also can be abused.

 

Any rule can be abused. For example, we're throwing 90 point attacks around pretty freely above, but I don't have many of those IMC, and I suspect you don't either. But saying "advantages are END free gives the advantages a far greater advantage - would you lower their cost instead? It's the same basic effect.

[Stone]

You beat me to the punch about armor piercing in that is mainly effective against high defenses. However with the current method of calculating END, I see no reason why anyone would buy it.

 

Correct, I do not have anyone in my game throwing around 90 pt plus attacks. The highest I have is about 65 pts. Your point about the advantage going to the advantage is well taken, but...they are advantages paid for by the PC with character points. I do not see an overbalancing issue. Okay so a PC can have a 4d6 EB with area effect and pay on 2 END instead of 4 END. It still eats up 40 character points and will only be effective against low level thugs and agents.

 

Without getting into exotic powers (EB's that bought partially reduced END) I can see your point, but I disagree with you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Stone

Without getting into exotic powers (EB's that bought partially reduced END) I can see your point, but I disagree with you.

 

If you don't get into the partially reduced END powers, you don't get my point.

 

Can the AP blaster take "9d6 EB AP, AP costs END" and pay 60 points for a 9d6 AP blast that costs 6 END? All your system does is reduce the cost of advantages. You'd get the same effect leaving AP costing END, but reducing the cost to +1/3 instead of +1/2.

 

Bottom line: if you want to encourage more advantages on powers, making the advantages END-free should help. It simply gives a bonus to powers with advantages, rather than straight powers.

 

If it only costs 4 END to throw the 8d6 EB AP, why can't the other guy buy 8d6 EB, Hard Hitting (+1/2) and get a 12d6 EB that costs 4 END as well?

[Farkling]

I myself am pretty much against partially reduced END powers. Keep you r point hacking constructs away from me!!

 

If you want partially reduced END, buy your power at half END...or buy it to 0 END and figure out some wierd side effect that makes sense...don't show up to my table with "it costs this much because THESE dice are at 0 END, and THESE dice are at half END, and THESE dice cost normal."

 

If you need some killer combo with END cost, buy your 10d6 Area Effect and your 14d6 EB, 0 END and your 20d6 EB and fire them all together at the target for 20 END as a multiple power attack.

 

Sorry about the Elemental Control/Multipower not working with this, but if you want a huge blasting effect, you need to pay for it...

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

I myself am pretty much against partially reduced END powers. Keep your point hacking constructs away from me!!

 

If you want partially reduced END, buy your power at half END...or buy it to 0 END and figure out some wierd side effect that makes sense...don't show up to my table with "it costs this much because THESE dice are at 0 END, and THESE dice are at half END, and THESE dice cost normal."

 

I generally find 1/2 END or 0 END work fine. Finer gradations aren't worth the hassle. The point above was more to equate the "AP costs no END" power to a straight EB.

 

The better question is, if you have a 12d6 EB that costs 4 END, how much END do you spend to fire 6d6? I'd say 2 if the point was to get "not full END and not half END", not "well, I only fire the 0 END dice", but guaranteed someone else at the table won't see it that way. But I agree that it makes more sense to just buy the whole thing half END - the difference isn't that big (in character points or END) that it's worth the added complexity.

 

So I guess you wouldn't use Pulsar (FREd example on partially limited powers) who has extra dice of EB costing 2x, 3x and 4x (IIRC) END. Partially reduced or partially increased; same end result of "blended END".

 

[And I think it could still be in an EC - the rule is that the power has to normally cost END, so you could shell out for the +1/2 and make it 0 END. Another reason I don't particularly buy into that rule, as saying "it has to cost END - no zero END allowed" would be more internally consistent. But let's leave those worms in their can!]

[Stone]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

If you don't get into the partially reduced END powers, you don't get my point.

 

And I do not think you are getting my point. I am not trying to encourage any advantages or disadvantages on powers. I am not trying to alter the costs of any advantages.

 

My point is the power with the advantage already cost more. Unless you are playing in an very high powered game, that alone is the determining factor on powers. The extra END cost is a double whammy and un-necessary.

 

If I have a PC that wants to load up a power with advantages, fine. If I have a PC that buys up a power with no advantages, then thats fine too.

 

A 3d6 EB loaded with autofire, area effect, double knock, and armor peircing is still a 3d6 EB. Yeah its a great room sweeper againts street thugs and such, but against a 250 pt or higher villian its pretty much useless. You might lucky and score a few points of stun or knockback, but other than that not much.

 

You can take the same points and make a much more effective EB, EGO attack, or whatever. Thats my point. If a character wants to overload his/her power with advantages because it is in the design of the character to have that power, the extra cost of the advantages themselves will keep the power from being very effective. Why pile on with extra END cost as well?

[Rene]

If we go with the argument that "Increased Maximum Range" Advantage should automatically make a power cost more END, because the character is putting more into it to make the power go further, then it would logically follow that the "No Range" Limitation should reduce the power's END cost.

 

Life Support don't cost END normally, because it's assumed that it's a unconsciously activated power by default. You have to take Limitations to make it Constant. That was the logic I followed in suggesting that only "switchable" Advantages should cost END. If your Area Effect is an unconscious part of the power, and you can't ever turn it off, then it shouldn't cost END. You have no control over it.

 

Of course it was just a suggestion to make things simpler than having to compile a list of which Advantages should cost END and which shouldn't

 

The problem with "just buy Reduced END for the power" suggestion is that it either reduces the power to 0 END Cost (and that may be too much), or it don't reduces it enough (1/2 END). On the other hand, I'd like the "Only Base Power Costs END" Advantage that Hugh suggested.

[Stone]

Thats what I have been saying. The END cost should be based on the base power cost. Not the base cost plus advantage cost.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Rene

If we go with the argument that "Increased Maximum Range" Advantage should automatically make a power cost more END, because the character is putting more into it to make the power go further, then it would logically follow that the "No Range" Limitation should reduce the power's END cost.

 

Life Support don't cost END normally, because it's assumed that it's a unconsciously activated power by default. You have to take Limitations to make it Constant. That was the logic I followed in suggesting that only "switchable" Advantages should cost END. If your Area Effect is an unconscious part of the power, and you can't ever turn it off, then it shouldn't cost END. You have no control over it.

 

Of course it was just a suggestion to make things simpler than having to compile a list of which Advantages should cost END and which shouldn't

 

The problem with "just buy Reduced END for the power" suggestion is that it either reduces the power to 0 END Cost (and that may be too much), or it don't reduces it enough (1/2 END). On the other hand, I'd like the "Only Base Power Costs END" Advantage that Hugh suggested.

 

I just have trouble with this whole concept. I can see (some of) what you're all talking about. I just can't figure out where the problem is. I may be wrong, but most campaigns probably don't have more than 100 or so active points (just a guess based on my own experience - I may be wrong). 100 points is 10 END, reduced to half equals 5. If the number is the problem than buy END. I've never had a problem with the rules (even the older 1 END/5 active points rule).

 

Now that doesn't seem to be the problem (I just wanted to say it tho). The problem seems to be the concept of paying in END for powers paid with points. To paraphrase "you already paid for advantages, why pay END". Turn it around (as has been suggested) and why pay for the 12d6 EB since you paid points for it. The fact that that the 3d6 autofire etc power is useless against 250 point characters would make me ask "why do it then?"

 

That said - hows this - (1) drop END. (2) Drop it to 1/20 normally, making all powers cost less. (3) Make another advantage (say Reduced END [0] a +3/4 advantage, make Reduced END [1/2] a +1/4 advantage, make Reduced End [variable based on circumstances] a +1/2 advantage). Use the +1/2 to come up with any other limited END between 1/2 and 0 - use house rules or agreement to come up with the amount. That could be the list of advantages or whatever that have been suggested. It's basically like the limited range/no range limitation.

 

Like I said - I don't understand the thoughts behind the question, but those are my ideas for whatever they're worth. Hope they might help.

[Rene]

Originally posted by badger3k

Like I said - I don't understand the thoughts behind the question, but those are my ideas for whatever they're worth. Hope they might help.

 

It's mostly a concept thing, really. Yes, I know END is dirty cheap, so is END Reserve. No problem at all to buy up END, lots of it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Stone

And I do not think you are getting my point. I am not trying to encourage any advantages or disadvantages on powers. I am not trying to alter the costs of any advantages.

 

But you are altering the cost of the advantages. Applying "costs END" to any advantage under your system reduces its cost. If I am prepared to pay the END, I buy 9d6 EB, AP, AP costs END for 60 points under your system. Or I buy 6d6 NND, NND costs END for 50 points instead of 60. Better yet, I buy the whole power 2x END and get it for 40 points, at the same END cost I would have paid under the rules as written (or pay 60 points and get a 9d6 NND that costs 2x END, and pay 9 END a shot).

 

You may not be trying to reduce the cost of advantages, but your system can be easily used to do exactly that. Unless, of course, you ban powers with advantages from taking Increased End limitations.

[Farkling]

Hugh...I do like Pulsar's "extended push" construction...I just don't like partial advantage applications in general (does this make me a hypocrite?)...I also do not particularly care for "half the dice are bought with no range" (or half with Armor Piercing) style effect...I'd prefer to put a 1/4 limitation on the whole power for "half effect beyond hand to hand range" or a variant of that to 6d6 at normal price + 6d6 at no range. It's a bookkeeping preference. I told them at Hexacon, "rules debates are for after the game. If you must resolve them in combat, there is a HeroClix game next door"

So here is definitely the place to discuss this stuff.

 

I'm with badger...if you get to shoot your advantages for free...how come I have to pay extra END for these extra dice?

 

its a mechanical balance thing. But I will quite happily switch my existing 8d6, 0 END EB out for an 8d6 AP, 4 END EB if I come play in your game...otherwise I'll be getting shortchanged on my power construction. The points I spent on 0 END are worth FAR less than the points I could have spent on Armor Piercing.

 

However...I would suppose that there is a case for the GM to add "costs END for Base Power only" as a custom advantage. Seems no sillier than "costs END only to activate" (I like this advantage...but the jury is still out on how over effective it is)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Hugh...I do like Pulsar's "extended push" construction...I just don't like partial advantage applications in general (does this make me a hypocrite?)...I also do not particularly care for "half the dice are bought with no range" (or half with Armor Piercing) style effect...I'd prefer to put a 1/4 limitation on the whole power for "half effect beyond hand to hand range" or a variant of that to 6d6 at normal price + 6d6 at no range. It's a bookkeeping preference. I told them at Hexacon, "rules debates are for after the game. If you must resolve them in combat, there is a HeroClix game next door"

So here is definitely the place to discuss this stuff.

 

I can't imagine how to adjudicate "1/2 is AP". 1/2 is Penetrating I could at least see a way to deal with, but 1/2 AP makes no sense. So I'd rule against it just as you would. [buy a Multipower with 12d6 EB and 6d6 AP EB if you must have that effect; even with 8d6 AP EB, it's 72 points vs 75 points - Farkling is SAVING you three points so quit whining!).

 

Some advantages work better as a "partial", but it's still a bit kludgy, and a reduced advantage cost will make more sense in most cases.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

I'm with badger...if you get to shoot your advantages for free...how come I have to pay extra END for these extra dice?

 

Exactly. I want +1 "Double Dice" advantage that costs no END!

 

Originally posted by Farkling

However...I would suppose that there is a case for the GM to add "costs END for Base Power only" as a custom advantage. Seems no sillier than "costs END only to activate" (I like this advantage...but the jury is still out on how over effective it is)

 

As long as you don't activate your power more frequently than every other phase, it's better than 1/2 END! I'd be inclined to allow "END on base power only" for +1/4 based on the "end to activate only" precedent. This is also less kludgy (if a bit less precise) than some dice that have reduced END.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Rene

If we go with the argument that "Increased Maximum Range" Advantage should automatically make a power cost more END, because the character is putting more into it to make the power go further, then it would logically follow that the "No Range" Limitation should reduce the power's END cost.

 

Ah yes, there's the kicker, and there's lots of situations like this. Limitations show the flip side of the problem in many cases, making even the base points not a good basis for END. "No Range" is an excellent example of that.

 

Another odd example, compare:

 

2D6K HKA, Ranged, No STR Added - 45AP, 30RP, 4END

 

or

 

2D6K RKA - 30AP, 30RP, 3END

 

Both do the same thing, but due to the sfx, HKA Ranged, No STR added may have made more sense, but now uses more END, as well as other AP issues (fitting in frameworks, etc.).

[Stone]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But you are altering the cost of the advantages. Applying "costs END" to any advantage under your system reduces its cost.

 

No, I'm not altering the cost of advantages. Armor piercing still costs +1/2. You are applying "Costs END" as a disadvantage to a power which like any other disadvantage will lower the cost of the power.

 

As far as buying extra dice as an advantage on a power, I would not allow that in my game. As I said, I know my "house rule" can be abused. It is up to me as the GM to watch out for it.

 

Obviously I am in the minority on this issue, thats ok. I do not see a major issue here. I believe the extra cost of an advantage alone is enough. Examples can be given for both sides of this issue. If advantages cost END, then why do disadvantages reduce END? Some disadvantages barely limit a power why others greatly hamper a power, but both only reduce the cost of the power and do not effect the END cost.

 

I am not trying to change the subject, just pointing out what I believe to be an unbalanced aspect of the game. That being said, Hero still is the best system out there.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Stone

If advantages cost END, then why do disadvantages reduce END? Some disadvantages barely limit a power why others greatly hamper a power, but both only reduce the cost of the power and do not effect the END cost.

 

Interesting point, seems similar to Rene's specific example of "No Range".