End: Should he go the way of Com?

[Alibear]

As I GM mostly I never bother with End. I don't control my players to see if they keep track of end unless someone comes back from unconcioussness or if someone is constantly pushing.

 

I feel it's just one more thing to keep track of for no good reason and as a GM I have enough to worry about.

 

 

 

I've decided to eliminate it from my games but not playtested it yet.

 

Can anyone tell me if they forsee any potential problems with this?

Has anyone done anything similar or does anyone think it's a really bad idea?

[McCoy]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Bad idea.

 

No END = no pushing, and that heroic "put everything you got into this final attack" is definitely in genre.

 

So is "wearing him down," the hyper-tough-but-not-too-bright opponent that can shrug off the character's best attacks that is best taken out by taunting him into burning END until he knocks himself out.

 

I can see house ruling "no END" in certain genres, but for superheroics and space opera it really fits.

[Alibear]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Do we need push and haymaker? We can haymker anything nowadays so do we really need both?

[Edsel]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

I have always used END in my games and in all of of the years I have have been playing I have never been involved in a game that didn't use END. It has always been a part of the game. There have been a lot of dramatic moments when characters have had to stuggle with exhausting their END to keep up the fight. A character being forced to burn STUN when they run out of END can make for very heroic action. Besides END is easy to track and has almost no impact on the speed of play.

[McCoy]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Do we need push and haymaker? We can haymker anything nowadays so do we really need both?

Do we? Or do we have the neutered shadow of what haymaker use to be?

 

I don't really see them as the same thing anyway. Both add more damage classes, but haymaker pays for them with extra time, often at the risk of being KO'ed or stunned so that that attack never goes off; push buys them through extra END, with the possibility of burning STUN.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

I pretty much only use EN for pushing and long term fatigue in my Supers and SF campigns . In my fantasy universe I use mainly to keep spellcasting a little less like a superpower.

 

I think the mechanism has its place. There's already notations you can drop it if you want. Maybe it should be optional/advanced rather than default?

[nexus]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

As a Houserule for a specific game or group, sure. They'll be certain changes, of course. As general rule, it should stay. It reflects some things very well like settings where even primary characters have to stop and take a breather every now and then and not just for dramatic effect. End Reserve simulates Power packs with a finer granularity then Charges.

 

Haymaker is different from Pushing as noted above, the entail different tactical risks and another reason you can Push anything that costs end but you can't Haymaker Flight or a Forcefield only attacks.

[Fearghus]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Yeah... Bad idea. I like the END mechanic especially in normal heroic games. It makes running street battles more interesting. suddenly the character that spent extra points on recovery has an edge. He can out pace is opponents simply by taking less recovery rounds.

 

The Brick tactic of letting an opponent wear himself out is also an option only if END is in the game.

 

I would not mind revising the END system a bit though. I am not sure how I would go about doing this, but it I think almost everything costing end is a bit too much paper work. Every time you move, use a power, attack... I have always thought there should be some things that you can just do because they are just that simple. For example if you made something like taking a 1/2 move not cost end then you would have to lower overall END and REC to compensate... but the system seems to work as is so I am sticking with it.

 

"Do not let what you can not accomplish interfere with what your CAN accomplish."

[Sean Waters]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

I have not ditched END but the last supers game I ran I built the characters and they were all built with reduced END (zero END or END only to activate).

 

The reason I did not get rid of END completely was that I think it is a useful count: you can use it to build powers that can not be used constantly, with increased END, and you can use it as a measure of fatigue and all sorts of other minor but cool stuff. In addition it changes the relative value of powers: if Force Field does not cost END, buying Armour becomes a lot less attractive.

 

However, tracking it for every power, every time does seem like a waste, which is why I built the characters to we did not need to bother with it.

 

If you do not want to buy reduced END for all powers, you could house rule that STR and powers do not cost END (but are still visible if they should do) but then you can still use END for all the cool stuff it can do - without worrying about all of the consequences of removing it entirely.

 

That still leaves the power cost issue, of course. How you balance that is up to you. One option might be this: every time you use a power that would normally cost END, but does not because of the house rule, your REC for that turn is reduced by 1. That may seem like exchanging one count for another, but it is probably a lot easier to keep track of.

[nexus]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Endurance is also a "realism" characteristic. It keeps characters from performing at peak capacity and constantly exerting themselves fully essentially forever at least not without paying points for the privilege. It's not perfect in this regard but its something, somthing that would probably have to replaced if you wanted to be realistic.

[Alibear]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

A character being forced to burn STUN when they run out of END can make for very heroic action.

 

This is the one saving grace for End for me.

 

Maybe they could burn stun to push instead of End and still have the same heroic result. In fact that's what I'll do. To push one simply loses 2d6 stun instead and End is gone from my games.

 

Thanks all for helping me think this through.

[Alibear]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Endurance is also a "realism" characteristic. It keeps characters from performing at peak capacity and constantly exerting themselves fully essentially forever at least not without paying points for the privilege. It's not perfect in this regard but its something' date=' somthing that would probably have to replaced if you wanted to be realistic.[/quote']

 

 

Long Term End is something I've always just handwaved and GM ruled anyway.

[nexus]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Long Term End is something I've always just handwaved and GM ruled anyway.

 

That's fine. I was simply pointing out that the realism angle of Endurance both short and long term.

[Sean Waters]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Endurance is also a "realism" characteristic. It keeps characters from performing at peak capacity and constantly exerting themselves fully essentially forever at least not without paying points for the privilege. It's not perfect in this regard but its something' date=' somthing that would probably have to replaced if you wanted to be realistic.[/quote']

 

You can edge round that by, say, using CON to measure how many phases you can operate at maximum effort (but that is just replacing it with another mechanism as you say), and the 'realism' of END is limited (a normal running at full tilt without pushing will never become fatigued) - but that is just a mechanistic gripe.

 

I think END plays a useful part in the richness of Hero but I can understand why people get bugged by it - END is not a real issue in a lot of combats but you still have to track it every phase for most characters.

 

If we had a less invasive system for tracking fatigue it could speed the game up without diluting the game experience.

[OddHat]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

I'd kind of like to see Stun, END, and BOD all merged into Hit Points, which are then burned every time you take an action or use a power, as well as being burned when you get hit. Long term damage would be reflected by Hit Point losses that take longer to Recover, going in steps down the time chart. Crippling injuries would involve taking more than X% of your Hit Points in a single blow, with each hit location having being able to take only so much. Crippling injuries to the Head or Neck would be fatal.

 

I expect to see this change in Hero shortly after Steve releases The Book of Naked Clowns.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

I don't see tracking END as any more onerous than tracking, say, Charges (such as which spells you have used, or how many times certain special abilities have been used, in other game systems). It serves an in-game purpose and, to me, differentiates Hero from many other systems.

 

If you don't want to track it, I like Sean's approach - build the characters with 0 END on everything and now you don't need to track it. Many abilities are costed based on their END cost or lact thereof. Most basic example: ditch END and Force Field becomes Discount Defense.

[Fearghus]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

If tracking your numbers becomes difficult you could always try doing what I do.

 

I write a list of numbers down the side of my character sheet in the margin. Mar the my body, END and Stun are in those numbers. then pick three colors of paper clips. One for body, one for stun and one for end. When I use up two END I move the paper clip It's pretty easy and you really only have to be able to count to do it.

 

I have a player that keeps d10s in front of him with all his values on them. I find that to be a bit awkward because there is always the potential for the dice to get knocked around and you loose track of where you were.

[ghost-angel]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

I don't like the title of this thread. Comliness has not been removed, it has been replaced with a more defined mechanic. Fer cryin' out loud.

 

So unless you're proposing to replace Endurance with a different Mechanic you have the premise all wrong.

 

And I've played in game that ignore END usage. Generally, not too different, but you don't get "Down to the wire" in fights which always proves to up the intensity level and sweetens the taste of victory that much more.

[nexus]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

The characteristic Comeliness and its attached mechanics are gone in 6th Edition. It has been replaced by a Talent called "Striking Appearance" (we don't know how "better defined" it is until we see the text for it). This is thread is about removing the Characteristic Endurance and its attached mechanics. I don't see the problem. If some takes your car and leaves you a motorcycle saying your car isn't gone because you have something that fulfills a similar function in a different manner isn't really accurate.

[Alibear]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

I don't like the title of this thread.

 

I'll just have to try and live with that.

[Vondy]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

I run heroic games and have not tracked endurance for years. Its never been an issue. At the same time, I think it should remain in baseline system with toolkitting notes on ditching it where apropos.

[ghost-angel]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Most of the games I've ditched it in are Modern Genres - notably Cyberpunk and Military games. It doesn't interrupt anything to remove it from those games - either in execution or concept.

 

The rest of the time, the game plays better with it, IMO.

[archermoo]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Taking the title of the thread at face value: Should END be replaced with a Talent? I don't see how a Talent could be worked to provide the same benefit as END currently does as a Characteristic. Though I would certainly be open to hearing suggestions about how to do it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Let's see...

 

Endurance Talent.

 

for +1 Points in the Talent you can power up to a 10 Active Point Power for 1 Phase.

for +2 Points you double the number of Powers you can keep active each Phase.

 

So... +6 Points to power up to a single 60 Active Point Power.

+2 Points let's you have 2 Powers active in a Phase, each up to 60 AP.

 

8 Points let's you Move & Shoot every Phase, given a "suggested standard" of 60 Active Points.

 

Pushing: by Making an EGO Roll you can power 1 Extra Power per Phase or add +10 Active Points to an already active Power.

The GM may award more based on how much you made the EGO Roll by.

 

Burning Stun: Alternately you can 'burn stun' - instead of making an Ego Roll you take 1D6 Stun for every 10 Active Points in powers you wish to increase; or a flat 2d6 Stun to activate 1 additional Power that phase. You get no defeses against this Stun Damage.

 

Edit Starting END: Everyone gets 1 Point free, you can use up to One 10 AP Power per Phase for free. So the cost of my example is 7 Points. This let's Normals run away.

 

How's that sound for replacing Endurance with a Talent?

[Vondy]

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com?

 

Let's see...

 

Endurance Talent.

 

for +1 Points in the Talent you can power up to a 10 Active Point Power for 1 Phase.

for +2 Points you double the number of Powers you can keep active each Phase.

 

So... +6 Points to power up to a single 60 Active Point Power.

+2 Points let's you have 2 Powers active in a Phase, each up to 60 AP.

 

8 Points let's you Move & Shoot every Phase, given a "suggested standard" of 60 Active Points.

 

Pushing: by Making an EGO Roll you can power 1 Extra Power per Phase or add +10 Active Points to an already active Power.

The GM may award more based on how much you made the EGO Roll by.

 

Burning Stun: Alternately you can 'burn stun' - instead of making an Ego Roll you take 1D6 Stun for every 20 Active Points in powers you wish to increase; or a flat 2d6 Stun to activate 1 additional Power that phase. You get no defeses against this Stun Damage.

 

How's that sound for replacing Endurance with a Talent?

 

I would implement this kind of system for superheroic games rather than use traditional END. But hey, that's just me.