Jump to content
mallet

How would you price this Limitation?

Recommended Posts

This question pertains to an ability for a Fantasy Hero campaign I'm building, but the Limitation I want to create could apply to any genre so I'm asking here. 

 

Basically I'm trying to get some opinions on a Limitation on an ability (Healing) that takes Extra Times based on how many dice the Healer decides to use. 

 

The sample power currently is this:

 

Healing Prayer - Healing BODY 3d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (45 Active Points); OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

 

What I am looking for is what you all think the Extra Time limitation should be valued at if the Healer wants to roll only one die then it takes a Phase, if he/she rolls 2 dice, then it is 2 phases to cast, if he/she uses all 3 dice, then it takes 3 phases, and so on. 

 

Eventually when the party raises in power I can see the Healer eventually raising this ability to being 6d6 or more, so at that time using it would take 6 phases or more. 

 

Obviously a -1/2 is too low a value, -1 1/4 (equal to a one turn limitation) might be closer to the mark, but eventually when it gets to 6d6 range, in a Fantasy game where average speed is generally 3 for most characters, then it would actually take 2 turns to cast at full power, but then that is so far off in the campaign that maybe that would work? It a cost/value benefit early on in the game, but later not nearaly as much. 

 

I'd rather not have to re-work the math/ability everytime the character raises the power, so I'm looking for a general consensus on what people think a good value on this new type of Extra Time limitation might be.

 

Thanks for any thoughts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the correct way would be just build a compound power, but you sound like you don't like that idea. Here it is for demonstration purposes:

 

Healing
1d6 Healing, Body and Stun (+1/2) [15 AP], Standard Lims (-2), Full Phase (-1/2), Real: 4
plus
1d6 Healing, Body and Stun (+1/2) [15 AP], Standard Lims (-2), Extra Phase (-3/4), Real: 4
plus
1d6 Healing, Body and Stun (+1/2) [15 AP], Standard Lims (-2), 1 Turn (-1 1/4), Real: 4
plus
1d6 Healing, Body and Stun (+1/2) [15 AP], Standard Lims (-2), Turn plus a phase (-1 1/4), Real: 4
plus
1d6 Healing, Body and Stun (+1/2) [15 AP], Standard Lims (-2), Turn plus 2 phases (-1 1/4), Real: 4
plus
1d6 Healing, Body and Stun (+1/2) [15 AP], Standard Lims (-2), 2 Turns (-1 1/4), Real: 4

 

At no point would you be getting into the 1 minute time frame where the next break comes (unless you got to something like 18 dice). Personally, I would probably call it a -1 and not worry about it, with a minimum of 3 dice to start.

 

- E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a note, if they wanted to start adding other things, like each additional level has higher Increased Endurance lims or adds a skill roll or whatever, I would just work it up as a compound power (see above). You only have to do it once and the whole thing took me less than 5 minutes.

 

- E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there is more than one way to skin a champions power :) 

 

You could make a small heal, say 1d6.  Then make a second succor style aid to the heal with enough dice to increase the heal.

 

Something like 

1d6 Healing, Body and Stun (+1/2) [15 AP], Standard Lims (-2), Full Phase (-1/2), Real: 4

5d6 Aid to Healing, Standard Effect [15 points](+0), [30 AP], Standard Lims (-2), Full Phase (-1/2), Real: 8

 

Example:

one phase: 1d6 Healing.

two phases: One phase to aid the healing 15 points, one phase to do 2d6 healing.

three phases: Two phases to aid the healing by 30 points, one phase to do 3d6 healing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there are always other ways (I think eepjr24 gave you the response I would have had I been here first) and because it feeds my current hobby-horse.  

 

END Battery would give you the perfect vehicle to do this, but it would cost you points rather than save you them.

 

Have the healing draw from an END Battery that only Recovers when you are focussing on the battery and completely discharges whenever it is used.  You can then delay while the battery fills until you have enough END to cast whatever amount of dice you want and then need to start from the beginning again.

 

It is odd that something that makes something more difficult should cost you points.  🙂  (I stretch things here but it is a decent mechanism that I think should have, at least, a way to make it cost neutral).

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I agree with the compound power, but I'm going to comment on the END Reserve issue.

 

I question whether "something more difficult costs you more points", as it depends on what we compare.  So let's look...

 

Let's assume the character goes with Healing BODY 3d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (45 Active Points); OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4) as a compound power, so 1d6 requires a full phase, 2d6 requires 2 phases and 3d6 requires a full turn - the character has a 3 SPD.

 

So that's:

 

Healing BODY 1d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (15 Active Points); OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4), full phase (-1/2)  = 4 real points

+

Healing BODY 1d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (15 Active Points); OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4), extra phase (-3/4) = 4 real points

+

Healing BODY 1d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (15 Active Points); OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4), full turn (-1) = 4 real points

 

OK, first off, Healing BODY 3d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (45 Active Points); OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4), full phase (-1/2) would have cost 13 points.  The wonders of limitation stacking suggest he not drag out that extra time already.  It's only one point.

 

But if he instead buys Healing BODY 3d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (45 Active Points); OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4), full phase (-1/2) and a 4 point END reserve (1 point) with 4 recovery, which will cost 1 point with OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4), he pays 15 points.  So what did he get for those 3 points (15 - 12 for the compound power)?

 

His Healing no longer costs any END.  As well, presumably he starts with a full END battery, so he can use the full 3d6 in a half phase, before needing a turn to charge it back up again.

 

If he's OK with paying END, he puts Double END on the Healing, which means it draws from both the reserve and his personal END.  Now his Healing BODY 3d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (45 Active Points); OAF(Holy Symbol) (-1), Requires A Roll (Skill Faith; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4), full phase (-1/2), double END (-1/2) costs 11 real points, so he is down to 13 points (11 + 2 for the reserve) for the ability to use his Heal with a full phase action, then require a turn to recharge it.

 

Worth it?  Well, he could have simply bought the healing power with no END reserve for 13 points, and had no added time delays to use the full 3d6, so he's break even.

 

I'm not sold, however, that this is because of the END reserve.  I suggest it is because of the limitation stacking - making the healing take more time saves very little when it already has so many limitations.

 

Let's look at another option:

 

Healing BODY 3d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (45 Active Points); No limitations.  The character possesses a healing touch.  But he wants it to be easy to use.  So he adds 0 END - now it costs 60 points.

 

Or he buys a 12 points END reserve (3 points) with 12 REC (8 points) for 11 points, plus 45 for the base power, and our  SPD character can use his Healing Touch without using any END for 56 points instead of 60.

 

In this example, the character makes the power just as easy to use for 11 points instead of 15 points - what's limiting about the END reserve, compared to 0 END, to justify that point savings?  He certainly did not pay more points to be more limited!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, a partially limited, compound construct where each step uses a greater increment of Extra Time is the official model for "Charging Powers" (powers that get stronger the longer you hold them). So I second Eepjr24's suggestion.

IIRC this method is also noted as a specific exception to the rules which indicate you are actually supposed to choose to Activate (and pay END for) all of the components of the compound power you want to potentially benefit from at the very beginning, and that the END spent on increments you wind up not waiting long enough to finish activating is simply wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of good points there Hugh, though I am not sure that they are wholly focussed on what the OP was looking for but I appreciate the interaction.  🙂

 

As you say, if the limitation on taking time to build up enough "charge" to deliver greater healing is small in relation to the other limitations placed on the power, then you are not going to get much bang for your limitation buck.  Wont save a lot of points but it does have significant game impact.

 

If we go with your 3D6 Healing example.  If the power is straight up - no other limits then, as you point out you have a 45 point power that costs you 4 END to use at full power.

 

If you want the power to slowly build to its 3D6, then your example becomes

 

Healing BODY 1d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (15 Active Points); full phase (-1/2)  = 10 real points

+

Healing BODY 1d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (15 Active Points); extra phase (-3/4) = 9 real points

+

Healing BODY 1d6, BODY & STUN (+1/2) (15 Active Points); full turn (-1) = 7 real points

 

Your 45 point power has become a 26 point power.  That is a significant saving without any of the other flim flam added in.  If you wanted to compare it with 0 END then the 60 point power becomes a 39 point power.

 

If you, instead, use the END Battery, which allows you to fine tune things with more finesse than the compound power (and can look much less untidy on the character sheet) then you get the following.

 

The powers will have a base cost, the "cost END" version comes to 30 points (45 with a -1/2 for Double END) and the no END version costs 45 points for the power.  As compared to 26 points and 39 points for the compound power.  

 

The cost of the END battery might not be an awful lot.  I would have limitations on it anyway - to reflect that it would not start full and would only recover when the character was concentrating on it gaining power.  It might only be 2 points in total but those would be adding to powers already costing more than the compound version.  

 

It should be no surprise that a power with limitations (the compound version or the straight up limitation) cost less than the vanilla power.  The limitations make the power more difficult for the character to use in-game.  That makes sense.  A 60 point power becomes a 39 point power.

 

Using the END battery in the way I describe also makes the power more difficult for the character to use in-game, to almost the same extent.  But in this case the 60 point power becomes a 47 point power.

 

I dont think I am doing myself any favours!!  🙂  The END Battery solution is therefore a decent way of reducing the cost but not as efficient as the equivalent limitations would be....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot depends on which builds we compare.  Your Costs END version which costs 30 points can be used as a half phase action, rather than a full phase action.  If you are standing 4 meters away from your dying teammate, that's a big deal.  If the "Costs END" version also requires a full phase action to use, then it only costs 22 points - tack on 2 more for the Battery and it's cheaper, instead of more expensive.

 

Part of the problem is the limitations.  An END battery which starts at 0 is, to me, hugely limited as a big advantage on that END is that it does not get eliminated if the character is KOd.  But if we only put 4 END in the battery to begin with, no matter how limited we make it, the cost remains 1 point, even as the utility declines.  To the extent that this is a flaw, I suggest it is a flaw because we are not sufficiently granular.  Maybe we need to add three 0's to every character point number, so that 4 END Battery costs 1,000 CP and a limitation that markedly restricts it (say -1 1/2 so 10 END would cost 1 point just like 10 normal END would) lowers that cost to 400 points, instead of 0.4 points, but the minimum cost is still 1.

 

Isn't a power that can only be used 250 times a day more limited than one which can be used unlimited times?  Charges are an advantage, not a limitation, at that level - and a +1 advantage at that level.  I could have had unlimited uses at no END cost for +1/2, unless the power has Autofire.  If it has, say, 10x Autofire, then really I can only fully use it 25 times, not 250. 

 

For the OP, I suggest that the compound power approach is the appropriate build, but it clearly is not going to save many (any?) points when there are already a lot of limitations on the power.  That's a function of "limitation stacking" in general, not extra time or compound powers specifically.  Starting with a 45 point power, a -1/2 limitations will save 15 points (30 real point cost), but the next one only saves 8 points (22 real points), and the one after that only saves 4 points (18 RP), then 3 points (15 RP) and so on.  Now, in theory that's appropriate because your Extra Time doesn't limit the power at all when your OIF is missing anyway, but in practice, it means adding this extra time to get full benefits of the power seems to reduce its in-game utility a lot for the minimal point savings.

 

I will suggest that,  when adding the END battery makes the power more difficult overall, rather than less difficult overall, to use, we are likely not using the END battery appropriately.  It does not mean that the END battery itself is inherently flawed.  It does mean we're not really thinking its mechanics through.  If I wake up from  being KOd with 2 STUN, 2 END and 1 BOD, being able to apply that 4 points in my END battery that did not fade away to Heal myself 3d6 STUN and BOD feels like those 2 points were very well spent indeed.  But having made the power cost END, and dropping the Battery to 0 when I am KOd seems to have largely defeated the purpose of having an END battery in the first place.  If we limit it to take away all of its benefits, it feels like we did not do a stellar job of reasoning from effect.

 

It's far from the only example of how we can get bad results if we blindly apply the rules.  How limiting is it to be able to use a power for one hour per day, divided up as you see fit?  Put a 1 hour continuing fuel charge on that healing, and you get 0 END for free, unless you expected to have to use it 3,600 times in a day.  So that's the same as 3,600 charges, but it's -0 instead of a +1 advantage...where just making it 0 END would be a +1/2 advantage.  But put it on Life Support that prevents aging, hunger and thirst, and what have you done?

 

Perhaps we are not using either Charges or Fuel Charges in the manner they are supposed to be used.  Kind of like making our NND Blast Armor Piercing and Penetrating...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a point in the rules where charges switch from being a limitation to an advantage, there is no such threshold in END Battery.  i am sure that there must be a point where the END Battery is a limitation.  Just have not been able to sit down and define where it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

There is a point in the rules where charges switch from being a limitation to an advantage, there is no such threshold in END Battery.  i am sure that there must be a point where the END Battery is a limitation.  Just have not been able to sit down and define where it is...

I don't care for END Batteries in 6e at all, to the point that I have never even used one. =P

 

But I do allow them, for the most part with the same House Rules that Killer Shrike uses (a quick poke around his site will get them for you).

 

With Fuel Charges and Boostable Charges plus compound powers and partially limited powers I almost always get what I want in the power without having to use END Batteries. There are some cases where I would use them because it fit a concept better, but otherwise I haven't found much I like them for.

 

- E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

There is a point in the rules where charges switch from being a limitation to an advantage, there is no such threshold in END Battery.  i am sure that there must be a point where the END Battery is a limitation.  Just have not been able to sit down and define where it is...

 

I question this in the reverse, actually. 

 

Why should the default for charges be 0 END?  If I can only NovaBurst once per day because it's so draining on my powers, that does not mean it should cost 0 END.  I only carry three throwing daggers, but I still have to exert my STR to throw them.  There's no compelling reason Vancian magic should be less tiring than any other spellcasting.

 

Sure, just pulling the trigger on my gun may be 0 END, but that's not because I only have six bullets.  It's at least as much because I have a focus as it relates to a limited number of uses.

 

Maybe the limitations should be increased for small numbers of charges, and you buy 0 END separately.  16 charges is then a -1/2 limitation (and would fully offset the cost of 0 END).  Up to 32 charges is a -1/4 limitation and more charges than that is too minor a restriction to merit any limitation.

 

The END battery is END with an advantage that it does not disappear if you are KOd and keeps recovering from its separately purchased REC every turn, regardless of whether you get a normal recovery.  It also has a built-in limitation that it only powers certain abilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2018 at 9:55 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

Why should the default for charges be 0 END?  If I can only NovaBurst once per day because it's so draining on my powers, that does not mean it should cost 0 END.  

Because the alternative means additional, largely unnecessary book-keeping. However the default is largely irrelevent as you can still just as easily build powers that cost both Charges and END. All that would change with the default is the pricing model... the costs will likely be much the same (since the value of charges currently accounts for the fact that it also grants the Zero END advantage).

 

I bet your NovaBurst would be cheaper as a power that cost x10 or more END from an excessively large reserve that powered all your abilities... but then you might be screwed if you pop your NovaBurst and it fails to win the day... The advantage of NovaBurst using a Charge to represent all of "Novaman's excess Nova Energy" and his other abilities using his normal END is that he is not being hamstrung if his best ability is countered... yet he is still appropriately prevented from using it over and over.

 

The problem with using END to represent the expenditure of massive amounts of power is that END is designed to recover quickly (and hurt you if too much is spent too fast), making it a poor system for preventing a given power from being used repeatedly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cantriped said:

Because the alternative means additional, largely unnecessary book-keeping. However the default is largely irrelevent as you can still just as easily build powers that cost both Charges and END. All that would change with the default is the pricing model... the costs will likely be much the same (since the value of charges currently accounts for the fact that it also grants the Zero END advantage).

 

How is "charges would not be 0 END by default" additional bookkeeping compared to every non-charged power which also costs END by default?  One could also suggest that having charges be 0 END by default adds unnecessary construction  bloat for charged powers that should cost END, forcing a  limitation to offset an advantage conferred by another limitation.

 

Meanwhile, I think we gain in the decoupling model, as the limitation (Charges) does not automatically grant an advantage (0 END).  We also gain better point balancing - placing Charges on a 0 END power is no greater limitation, but limits the power without granting that offsetting advantage.  How is +10 PD/+10 ED Resistant Protection, 32 Charges more valuable than +10 PD/+10 ED Resistant Protection usable at all times?

 

19 hours ago, Cantriped said:

I bet your NovaBurst would be cheaper as a power that cost x10 or more END from an excessively large reserve that powered all your abilities... but then you might be screwed if you pop your NovaBurst and it fails to win the day... The advantage of NovaBurst using a Charge to represent all of "Novaman's excess Nova Energy" and his other abilities using his normal END is that he is not being hamstrung if his best ability is countered... yet he is still appropriately prevented from using it over and over.

 

The problem with using END to represent the expenditure of massive amounts of power is that END is designed to recover quickly (and hurt you if too much is spent too fast), making it a poor system for preventing a given power from being used repeatedly.

 

That is a mechanical advantage of a choice of character builds, rather than an advantage in better reflecting the Hero philosophies that mechanics are not bundled together, and that you get what you pay for. 

 

If charges cost normal END by default, the Nova Blast could still be 0 END at similar cost once limitation numbers were rebalanced, or it could be cheaper as a power that costs the normal amount of END, but can be used only once per day, or it could be even cheaper if it could be used only once per day and cost extra END.

 

Removing 0 END from a default for charges would not change build options, it would only change the default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How is "charges would not be 0 END by default" additional bookkeeping compared to every non-charged power which also costs END by default?

First off, the only time a power currently costs both END and Charges in an official build is for Heroic Projectile Weapons, and even then it is as a result of the STR Minimum rules and not because the weapon itself costs END to use. I don't know of any official build for anything that actually exists that uses both Charges and Costs END (either Personal or Reserve). Building a default rule around a non-existant condition seems counter-productive.

 

As for book-keeping: It is really very simple, using a non-charged power requires tracking one resource; using a charged power is the same but requires knowing one modifier. Meanwhile, using a charged, END-costing power requires the tracking of two resources and also requires knowing three modifiers (beause now you have to know to check for Zero END and Increased END Cost). 

 

For a GM in a superheroic campaign such a rule would significantly increase the amount of paperwork required to run the game. Either during play having to track the END and Charges expended by half a dozen mooks using two or three different kinds of firearms.

 

Then there is also the added clusterfuck of how confusing heroic weapons would look on paper (which admittedly is true of the inverse as well, but Charged, END-Costing Powers are not so common).

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If charges cost normal END by default, the Nova Blast could still be 0 END at similar cost once limitation numbers were rebalanced, or it could be cheaper as a power that costs the normal amount of END, but can be used only once per day, or it could be even cheaper if it could be used only once per day and cost extra END.

Irrelevent, as this is still true under the actual rules. Any Charged power can potentially be made even cheaper by adding Costs END (-1/2) and Increased END Cost. Changing the default won't make those powers any cheaper if the modifiers are recalculated.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Removing 0 END from a default for charges would not change build options, it would only change the default.

No it doesn't. It does change the APs of some of those constructs though, making melee weapons easier to Drain/Dispel, and ranged weapons harder (as a result of the shift in advantage placement) for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 8:32 AM, Cantriped said:

First off, the only time a power currently costs both END and Charges in an official build is for Heroic Projectile Weapons, and even then it is as a result of the STR Minimum rules and not because the weapon itself costs END to use. I don't know of any official build for anything that actually exists that uses both Charges and Costs END (either Personal or Reserve). Building a default rule around a non-existant condition seems counter-productive.

 

As for book-keeping: It is really very simple, using a non-charged power requires tracking one resource; using a charged power is the same but requires knowing one modifier. Meanwhile, using a charged, END-costing power requires the tracking of two resources and also requires knowing three modifiers (beause now you have to know to check for Zero END and Increased END Cost). 

 

Unquestionably if you have to track charges and END there is more bookkeeping.  That's true whether END is a default or not.  I need to know the same modifiers of Costs END and Increased END for charges that cost 0 END by default. 

 

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 8:32 AM, Cantriped said:

For a GM in a superheroic campaign such a rule would significantly increase the amount of paperwork required to run the game. Either during play having to track the END and Charges expended by half a dozen mooks using two or three different kinds of firearms.

 

I'd generally put 0 END on a firearm if charges cost END by default, so that's not really that tough.  What if the mooks are punching with a Hand Attack device?  That costs END by default as well.

 

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 8:32 AM, Cantriped said:

Then there is also the added clusterfuck of how confusing heroic weapons would look on paper (which admittedly is true of the inverse as well, but Charged, END-Costing Powers are not so common).

 

Try drawing out the full Hero power of a quarterstaff or a broadsword.  We don't typically put the full stats of heroic weapons.

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 8:32 AM, Cantriped said:

No it doesn't. It does change the APs of some of those constructs though, making melee weapons easier to Drain/Dispel, and ranged weapons harder (as a result of the shift in advantage placement) for example.

 

It certainly could change the cost of dispelling ranged weapons.  Why should it be easier to Dispel a 4d6 RKA with 16 charges than a 4d6 RKA that costs 0 END?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather avoid the compound power build just because it takes up a page of space for a concept, which I think is a weakness of 6th edition fiddly Hero.  Probably I'd assign the power a limitation equal to the average amount of heal most likely to be used, and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'd rather avoid the compound power build just because it takes up a page of space for a concept, which I think is a weakness of 6th edition fiddly Hero.  Probably I'd assign the power a limitation equal to the average amount of heal most likely to be used, and leave it at that.

 

Luckily, that turns out to be exactly what I gave him after I figured the compound power. 😃

 

- E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compound Powers are hardly a 6E thing, it was codified as a term during 5E, and has certainly been an idea since Partially Limited Powers were a thing.

 

Some alternate ideas to the aforementioned Compound Power;

 

I'm sure we could figure out how to use Damage Over Time, but I didn't sit down and do any math on it....

 

But, Cumulative with a series of Naked Advantages is an alternative. The build isn't any less messy that additional dice with their own Modifiers, but it's an alternative. Each Cumulative NA has it's own Limitations: must follow previous increment, increases time step by one....

 

Also, I'm in the camp that Charges shouldn't really cost 0END by default, folding an Advantage into a Limitation is 1) weird, 2) locks out or makes some ideas more complex than needed.

Edited by ghost-angel
wording...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ghost-angel said:

Also, I'm in the camp that Charges should really cost 0END by default, folding an Advantage into a Limitation is 1) weird, 2) locks out or makes some ideas more complex than needed.

 

I'm confused, do you support charges with END by default or not!!  🙂

 

You say you are, first clause, then argue against it for the rest of the sentence....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen several people in the "0 End should not be part of Charges" camp. I am curious, do you think the price of charges would need to be adjust accordingly? If so, it's really not that difficult of a change to make, you just move the limitation an additional -1/2 and folks who want 0 END add the advantage back?

 

If you don't change the limitation value it would change the math considerably and I would probably tend more back toward END Reserves that were heavily limited and defined to only recover at the base

or when I had access to whatever "ammunition" they required. Multiple gadgets gets more complex, but you could go with a large partially limited End Reserve that only powered individual powers.

 

- E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be inexperienced and relatively new compared, but I see Charges as covering two separate effects. Powers that are so exhaustive that they can only be used so often, and items, or battery powered devices. 

 

Say for example, Mr Stereotypical NovaMan with his three times a day massive nova blast, that drains him a whole lot each time they use it. Would that make sense to have an End cost? I'd say yeah. Then you have Jack-in-the-Mallet with his firecracker sight-flash for a few times a day. Does that drain him? Nah, the device explodes and does it's effect. Maybe an end cost for how far he threw it if you were being picky. 

 

If I required a power that cost End and used charges, I'd probably put in that the charge effect would be applied first, before placing in the limitation Cost End. Could you change the Charge table instead and assume it costs End first, and then Cut away End Cost? Yeah. Totally within your power. However, the Charge table has many more moving parts in it, even if it is just sliding up and down the chart. Thus, apply the easier Cost End afterward. Occam's Razor and all that.

 

All in all, it's the inherent problem with trying to simulate all possible limited-number effects while still being able to write it down. Some Charge powers should, some Shouldn't. It's as much a bug dressed as a feature, as it is a feature with bugs. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eepjr24 said:

I have seen several people in the "0 End should not be part of Charges" camp. I am curious, do you think the price of charges would need to be adjust accordingly? If so, it's really not that difficult of a change to make, you just move the limitation an additional -1/2 and folks who want 0 END add the advantage back?

 

If you don't change the limitation value it would change the math considerably and I would probably tend more back toward END Reserves that were heavily limited and defined to only recover at the base

or when I had access to whatever "ammunition" they required. Multiple gadgets gets more complex, but you could go with a large partially limited End Reserve that only powered individual powers.

 

I believe we would have to change the limitation value of Charges if we made Charged powers cost END by default, just as the cost of Aid was altered when it was modified to cost END by default.  I would note that, when 6e made adjustment powers ranged by default, the cost was not increased.  I think that reflects a vision, with which I would agree, that adding range corrected an overpricing for a Ranged STUN Drain compared to a Blast AVAD Power Defense.

 

That fix is not as easy as adjusting the limitation (or advantage) on each level of Charges by 1/2.  That works perfectly, of course, at 16 charges, where a -1/2 limitation perfectly offsets a +1/2 advantage.  However, it makes 32 charges, 0 END cost combine to 1.2x the current cost, rather than 1.25.  That's not a substantial change, so OK.  Anything more than 64 charges would qualify for no limitation, so 0 END becomes the same +1/2 advantage.

 

But 8 charges as a -1 limitation would mean 0 END, 8 charges costs 75% of the AP rather than 2/3 of the AP.

 

Make 4 charges -1 1/2, and 4 charges that cost 0 END cost 60% of AP instead of 50%.

 

My bias would be to rework the charges to as closely match the cost of X Charges, 0 END to the present pricing.  That won't line up perfectly in all cases as we are working with 1/4 increments, and it means 1 charge would be a -3 1/2 limitation, so that 1 charge that costs 0 END still costs 1/3 of the AP of the base power.  This assumes one accepts that the present pricing is appropriate for that many uses with no END cost.

 

2 hours ago, Sveta said:

I may be inexperienced and relatively new compared, but I see Charges as covering two separate effects. Powers that are so exhaustive that they can only be used so often, and items, or battery powered devices. 

 

Say for example, Mr Stereotypical NovaMan with his three times a day massive nova blast, that drains him a whole lot each time they use it. Would that make sense to have an End cost? I'd say yeah. Then you have Jack-in-the-Mallet with his firecracker sight-flash for a few times a day. Does that drain him? Nah, the device explodes and does it's effect. Maybe an end cost for how far he threw it if you were being picky. 

 

If I required a power that cost End and used charges, I'd probably put in that the charge effect would be applied first, before placing in the limitation Cost End. Could you change the Charge table instead and assume it costs End first, and then Cut away End Cost? Yeah. Totally within your power. However, the Charge table has many more moving parts in it, even if it is just sliding up and down the chart. Thus, apply the easier Cost End afterward. Occam's Razor and all that.

 

All in all, it's the inherent problem with trying to simulate all possible limited-number effects while still being able to write it down. Some Charge powers should, some Shouldn't. It's as much a bug dressed as a feature, as it is a feature with bugs. 

 

My view is pretty basic.  Not costing END is a feature.  That means it should be an advantage.  Limited uses per day is a bug.  That means it should be a limitation.

 

As well, why should NovaMan get a -2 limitation for making his NovaBurst cost 0 END and only being usable once a day when TurtleMan's UltraShield, which provides Resistant Protection once per day, gets the same -2 limitation despite not spending any less END on that power?  NovaMan is getting a free +1/2 advantage compared to TurtleMan - how is that fair?  Adding 1/2 to each level of Charges limitation would be the equivalent of recognizing that TurtleMan has effectively "paid" the Costs END limitation on his power, before removing it with Charges.

 

Taken another way, if NovaMan's NovaBlast exhausts him, then make it cost 10x END and he will be exhausted.  If it so depletes his reserves that he will be unable to use it again for a day, make it 1 charge.  If it depletes his reserves, but he's fresh as a daisy and ready to run a marathon right after using it, buy it 0 END and 1 charge.  If it depletes his reserves and exhausts him, then one charge and increased END is the way to go.

 

But the baseline - before advantages or limitations - is that it costs 1/10 of AP in END and can be used as often as he wants.  If we lower the END cost, that is an advantage and should be purchased as such.  Making it higher is a limitation, so apply that limitation,  And limiting how many times a day it can be used (not really how often - 2 charges can be used in a single Multiple Attack), that's what Charges represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×