Different REC based on powers used

[digeridork]

I recently suffered defeat at the hands of fickle dice. I had a choice between sticking my character in a machine and maybe bringing him back or creating a new character. I chose the section option. 

 

I want to play a blaster with fire-based powers and a couple electric-based powers. They'll both draw from the same END pool, but thematically I want the END from electric-based powers to recover at a slower rate than the fire-based (primary) powers. Is there a way of doing this without buying a new END pool for use with the electric-based powers? I'm sort of drawing a blank.

1) I'm using the Champions Complete book because that's what I have available (because three someones managed, as a group, to forget to pack their laptops), 
2) I'm thinking some sort of Limited Power modifier on the electric-based powers,
3) Or some sort of Recoverable Charge,
4) Or I'm likely missing something very obvious

[Doc Democracy]

well. You are asking for bureaucracy in your life.  What kind of delay are you thinking about?  I might simply go for END used from electricity based powers takes x? longer to recover.

 

What you then need to do is record your values and decide with the GM how this is going to work.

 

If you have 40 END, 6 END and electricity takes twice as long to recover, consider the following.  You have used 7 END for fire and 7 END for electricity?  

 

You might decide that REC is split between the columns and the electricity column gets to recover once in every two recoveries.  So in the first REC you drop the fire END used to 4, electricity REC remains at 7.  Next recovery fire goes to 1, electricity goes to 4. The next recovery is more interesting.  You only have one END to recover in the fire column and you would not expect the electricity column to recover this round.  You might decide to come up with some kind of complex solution but I would stick with simple when there are two kinds of END to recover.  If there is only electricity END to recover, you recover 3 END (1/2 your REC per recovery).

 

The value of the limitation on the electricity powers would have to be negotiated with your GM.  If the character relies on the electricity powers then it is likely to be a higher limitation than if they are supplementary to your core powers.

 

Doc

 

 

[steriaca]

I would have one use persional END, and the other use a END Reserve. That way you can keep track of both powers separately.

 

Did you know: Endurance Reserve was, in Champions 1st edition, a power limitation instead of a power in itself.

[Lucius]

 

Give the Electrical Powers a Side Effect: Drain END, with a long recovery time.

That way the power costs END as normal then on top of that drains, say, 1d6 END that don't come back for five minutes, or an hour, or however long you and the Game Operations Director agree on.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says a fire power may burn through END but what the electrical power does to END is shocking

[massey]

Put a limitation on your electrical powers that they have increased End use.

 

12D6 Energy Blast (fire) -- 6 End

12D6 Energy Blast (electricity), Increased End x2 -- 12 End

 

Your electrical powers will now take twice as long to recharge.  If you really want to get more complicated, you can buy some of your Endurance Reserve on a limitation "only for electrical powers".  That way you don't run out of End any faster, it just takes longer to recover it.  This will save bookkeeping.  So...

 

Endurance Reserve: 100 End, 10 Rec

plus

Endurance Reserve: +100 End, only for electrical powers.

 

This means when you use your fire blast, you spend 6 End from the 100 in the main reserve.  It recovers at 10 per turn.  When you use your lightning blast, you spend 6 from the main reserve and 6 from the electrical reserve (in actuality it's the same End Reserve, it's just partially limited).  So you won't run out of End any faster, it just takes longer to recover it (twice as long, actually).

[Doc Democracy]

Endurance Reserves are often a decent solution bureaucracy wise but I have issues with spending points to limit a character....

 

 

....I do like the drain idea as a side effect (though that does have an issue with increasing the amount of END practically available, no?)

[Hugh Neilson]

Doc, the END reserve is a challenging one, to me.  The points spent buy additional END, limited to only being available for certain powers.  That END is also not lost if the character is KOd, nor subject to END drains, but it does follow its own separate recovery time.  So is having 100 extra END to power your Fire powers limiting because you cannot use regular END or advantageous because you have extra END which does not drop to nil if you are KOd?  The original (Limitation) END reserve provided END sufficient to use the full power a number of times equal to half the charges one would receive for the same limitation (so 8x END reserve was equivalent to 16 charges - no limitation, and no END cost).  It did not have a REC, but recovered like charges. 

 

I'm still not sold that 6e should not have removed "charges cost no END by default" and scaled up the limitations to compensate.  That limitation comes with a built-in advantage.

 

To the original question, like most, I see a high potential for a bookkeeping nightmare.  What about two END reserves, one usable only for Fire Powers and the other for both Fire and Electric, with Electric having slower recovery?  This seems to simulate the more rapid recovery, and more available reserves, for use of the fire powers.

 

I'm not sure what this is meant to simulate (i.e. what it is intended to mean in actual play).  Maybe there are some other options which would fit better.

 

One option would be to limit the REC to either have a portion that only recovers END used for fire powers, or maybe has a longer time increment for electrical powers.  You would then track the END used in total, and the END used on electrical powers.  REC works normally until only END used for electrical powers is being recovered, and then drops to the lower rate.  Or perhaps the REC is 1/minute for electrical powers - every 5th REC recovers electrical END first.

 

So, using Doc's example of 6 REC and 7 END used for each type of powers:

 

If only half of REC can recover electrical END, no big deal, as you would recover 3 END from each pool on each recovery.  But if you used only electric powers, you are only recovering 3 END.  If you were down 4 Fire END and 2 Electric END, one recovery gets it all back, but if you are down 2 Fire and 4 Electrical, you would get only 3 Electric back, plus the 2 Fire.

 

If the time increment is longer for Electrical, then the first recovery restores 6 Fire END, and the second recovers the point remaining.  3rd and 4th - nothing.   5th gets 6 Electric back, then nothing until the 10th.

[BoloOfEarth]

Since the OP stated that he only wants one END pool, not two, I'd suggest something like:

 

Endurance Reserve 100 END = 25 AP, 25 RP

Endurance Reserve 9 REC = 6 AP, 6 RP

Endurance Reserve +9 REC; Only to recover END used by Fire Powers (-1/2) = 6 AP, 4 RP

 

Then handle as fire END use recovers first, then electric END use.

 

Alternately, you could just make the Fire Powers with Reduced END (Half END) to simulate that they recover faster.  For attacks in a Multipower, just increase the reserve amount to cover the extra Advantage cost, but don't buy any electric powers up to the full reserve.

 

For example:  FireCharger has the following Multipower:

 

Multipower, 75 points [75 AP, 75 RP]

f - Fire Bolt:  Blast 12d6, Half END (+1/4) [75 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Nova Flames:  RKA 4d6, Half END (+1/4) [75 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Fireball:  Blast 8d6, AP (+1/4), AoE (16m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Half END (+1/4) [70 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Shocker:  Blast 6d6, NND (defense is being insulated; +1) [60 AP, 6 RP, costs 6 END]

f - ArcLight:  Blast 8d6 + Flash Sight Group 4d6 [60 AP, 6 RP, costs 6 END]

[steriaca]

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

Since the OP stated that he only wants one END pool, not two, I'd suggest something like:

 

Endurance Reserve 100 END = 25 AP, 25 RP

Endurance Reserve 9 REC = 6 AP, 6 RP

Endurance Reserve +9 REC; Only to recover END used by Fire Powers (-1/2) = 6 AP, 4 RP

 

Then handle as fire END use recovers first, then electric END use.

 

Alternately, you could just make the Fire Powers with Reduced END (Half END) to simulate that they recover faster.  For attacks in a Multipower, just increase the reserve amount to cover the extra Advantage cost, but don't buy any electric powers up to the full reserve.

 

For example:  FireCharger has the following Multipower:

 

Multipower, 75 points [75 AP, 75 RP]

f - Fire Bolt:  Blast 12d6, Half END (+1/4) [75 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Nova Flames:  RKA 4d6, Half END (+1/4) [75 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Fireball:  Blast 8d6, AP (+1/4), AoE (16m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Half END (+1/4) [70 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Shocker:  Blast 6d6, NND (defense is being insulated; +1) [60 AP, 6 RP, costs 6 END]

f - ArcLight:  Blast 8d6 + Flash Sight Group 4d6 [60 AP, 6 RP, costs 6 END]

I like your explanation, cause it does what the original poster wants without going into book keeping hell.

[BoloOfEarth]

In fairness, my second suggestion is just a variation on Massey's suggestion of increasing the END cost of electric powers, albeit one that eases the bookkeeping burden.

[dsatow]

3 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

Since the OP stated that he only wants one END pool, not two, I'd suggest something like:

 

Endurance Reserve 100 END = 25 AP, 25 RP

Endurance Reserve 9 REC = 6 AP, 6 RP

Endurance Reserve +9 REC; Only to recover END used by Fire Powers (-1/2) = 6 AP, 4 RP

 

Then handle as fire END use recovers first, then electric END use.

 

Alternately, you could just make the Fire Powers with Reduced END (Half END) to simulate that they recover faster.  For attacks in a Multipower, just increase the reserve amount to cover the extra Advantage cost, but don't buy any electric powers up to the full reserve.

 

For example:  FireCharger has the following Multipower:

 

Multipower, 75 points [75 AP, 75 RP]

f - Fire Bolt:  Blast 12d6, Half END (+1/4) [75 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Nova Flames:  RKA 4d6, Half END (+1/4) [75 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Fireball:  Blast 8d6, AP (+1/4), AoE (16m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Half END (+1/4) [70 AP, 7 RP, costs 3 END]

f - Shocker:  Blast 6d6, NND (defense is being insulated; +1) [60 AP, 6 RP, costs 6 END]

f - ArcLight:  Blast 8d6 + Flash Sight Group 4d6 [60 AP, 6 RP, costs 6 END]

 

Personally, I don't see the advantage of this over having two end pools.  You are still keeping track of the end used for electrical powers and the end used for fire powers.

 

Then again, I don't understand why the poster wants only one end pool.  If he could give an example of why from a game effect he wants only one pool, I could understand what he's trying to accomplish.  If he wants it to be easier to use fire powers when his end is low, then wouldn't it just be better to just put reduced end on the fire powers?

[digeridork]

Thanks for the advice. I sort of got blinders on with respect to a single END pool being easier on me the player. MY original intention would be that it would be some limitation that I could tack onto the character to make character creation and designing powers easy to. I need to remember that there are probably easier ways to do something and not to go with my first thought. Thanks for that reminder as well. 

After discussing with my GM I'm thinking the two END pools is going to be what I want to do. Thanks again for the options.

[Lucius]

9 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

 

....I do like the drain idea as a side effect (though that does have an issue with increasing the amount of END practically available, no?)

 

How is a Drain going to increase the END?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary predicts cloudy with a chance of Drain

[steriaca]

41 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

How is a Drain going to increase the END?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary predicts cloudy with a chance of Drain

It's probably a Side Effect.

[Doc Democracy]

10 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

How is a Drain going to increase the END?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary predicts cloudy with a chance of Drain

 

D'oh!  I meant decrease, obviously!!! ?

 

Take ComplexRECMan, he has an END of 40 and fire powers that cost 3 END and electricity powers that cost 3 END but have a side effect that drains 3 END (standard effect).

 

If CRM uses his fire powers he now has an END of 37 that recovers normally.  If he uses the electricity powers he now has an END of 34, three of which recovers normally and 3 which may recover in minutes or hours depending on the purchase.  If you wanted that to be even except for the recovery, then you would have to have Reduced END advantage for the electricity powers which increase their cost - even if that balanced out you are spending the same for a worse outcome.

 

You might persuade the GM to allow you to take a delayed recovery END drain instead of normal END for a negotiated limitation (it is good practice to use a mechanic already in the game than dream up a new one).  I might go for that as a GM, somewhere from +1/4 to +1/2 depending on the delayed rate.  Maybe more if I thought this really had a big impact - it will impact the use of fire powers as well, as the END available shrinks...

 

Doc

 

[Doc Democracy]

15 hours ago, dsatow said:

Then again, I don't understand why the poster wants only one end pool.  If he could give an example of why from a game effect he wants only one pool, I could understand what he's trying to accomplish.  If he wants it to be easier to use fire powers when his end is low, then wouldn't it just be better to just put reduced end on the fire powers?

 

One END pool means that everything comes from the same place and one kind of powers tires him out more than the others.  If the tiring powers are cool there is the temptation to use them despite the fact that it reduces the ability to use the fire powers later - there is a dynamic that is not present when you have two pools.

 

My problem with 2 END pools is that the RAW way to do that is to spend points on them.  He is then spending points for a worse outcome.  It might actually be simpler to persuade the GM to rule the electricity powers use Long Term Endurance rather than normal END, as GM, for no cost, I would allow a reduced amount of LTE than normal or for a limitation the same END but Long Term recovery.

 

Doc

[steriaca]

A simpler solution is use Increse END Cost for electricity powers, and Reduced END Cost for fire powers. It has no effect on REC, but it is also less book keeping.

 

You could instead use Limited Power (Cost END And Long Term END: suggested value -1/4) on all electricity powers. But this also becomes complicated book keeping.

 

Remember, you have to track END, STUN, and BODY. You rairly have to track Long Term END except for special circumstances.

[Doc Democracy]

If you had a power (or powers) generating LTE, then you would have to track it during a fight as it would inexorably reduce the END you had to play with during the fight...

 

I thought 1st edition Fantasy Hero was quite innovative in the way it disincentivised heavy armour by causing LTE.

[Amorkca]

I would just have the Electricity powers cost 1.5x endurance with the limitation.  Fire powers stay the same for endurance cost.  

 

Explanation being he/she has to actively concentrate in order to use the Electricity powers.  Which could also add other limitations too!

[assault]

This thread is a good example of why you should describe the effect you are modeling in plain language before you jump into the rules.

 

What is the effect you are after? What are its effects? What does it look like? What are its impacts on the game? Etc.

[Cassandra]

The easiest way to handle this is just to buy Reduced END on some of the powers.

[Pattern Ghost]

+X REC, only for fire powers (negotiate limitation cost with GM).

 

Edit: Alternately, +X REC, not for Electric powers, for a lower limitation value.

[LoneWolf]

The separate recovery is going to be a book keeping nightmare.  I can understand wanting a simple solution, but complexity can be in either the purchase or the use of a power.  To me it is better to purchase the power using a more complex scheme that is simple to use.  This way the player only has to deal with the complexity at character creation.  The other way he has to deal with it every time he uses the power.

 

That being said two END batteries are going to be the best way to simulate what the OP wants.  One END battery has a slower recovery and can be used for both types of power.  The other battery has a higher recovery and can only be used for the fire powers.  If you want the powers to be able to be used the same amount of times before the battery is depleted put the  advantage ½ END on the electrical powers. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree that differentiating "complex to build" from "complex to run" is important.  Needing an extra hour to work out the mechanics on paper in character creation is a lot better than needing a minute to record END after each action or recovery.  Game time is much more precious.

[Pattern Ghost]

On 4/27/2018 at 5:35 AM, LoneWolf said:

The separate recovery is going to be a book keeping nightmare. 

 

Yeah, when I think about it, two REC scores is almost up there with variable SPD.