Jump to content

Alternate END/Pushing/AP limit rule - Nitpickers wanted


RDU Neil

Recommended Posts

So, I know I'm much less detail oriented than some folks on these boards, and pretty loose in my rule interpretations if they make the game unfun, but I do appreciate the more structured views of others, and wanted to get some feedback.

 

Drivers for making new rule:

  1. For END, we never liked tracking END in the RAW sense, and generally ignored it, even in supers games. 
  2. BUT, we always enjoy "Pushing" as a way to feel quite superheroic. and END is necessary to balance Pushing, obviously.
  3. ALSO, Active Point caps were important, but hazy and over time were often ignored when certain complex builds "broke the limit."

 

What I came up with to address all of this is as follows.

 

  1. END is a stat that indicates the maximum AP output of any one attack, allowed for that character. The END stat of the character shows the AP cap for the character/game.
  2. The END stat for a character must be bought to the AP level desired for their standard attack. (e.g. if they tend to have max 14d6 Energy Blast, they need to have 70 END on the sheet.)
  3. No limitations allowed for this base END stat.
  4. No attack can surpass that AP limit without pushing, this includes added DCs for maneuvers. (This means, even if the character bought a 15d6 EB, they could only do 14d6 if their END was only 70).

 

So at this point, essentially I'm just establishing the AP limit for the character/campaign, right on the sheet. Look at the END stat, and you know what their max attack is. Done.

 

  1. Any use of powers at the END/AP limit or below, do not cost incremental END. (Don't have to track action by action END costs.)
  2. Any use of a power above the END/AP limit require "Pushing" the power. A character can Push for up to 1/2 the active points of the attack.
  3. Pushing costs the AP being pushed, as a reduction in the total amount of END available for the character. (e.g. Push my 10d6 EB up to 15d6, so my END of 50 is reduced to 25.)
  4. Characters with reduced END are limited to the AP of their REDUCED END for further attacks. (With only 25 END, I can only do 5d6 EBs for the moment.)
  5. END is recovered as normal. (Spend an action to add Recovery to END total.)

 

This does a really good job of making the cost of the Pushing dramatic, as the character just unleashed hell, but is now weak and can't really fight well until they take time to suck it up.)

 

Overall, the basic approach feels very elegant. Easy to see the AP of a character's attacks. (And Defenses almost always are less AP than the attacks of the game, in my experience.) It helps to avoid the work around, where various abilities stack to put the attack way beyond the AP level of the game. (The 40 AP game with the 40 Str, Martial Artist with Damage Classes and 8d6 Hand Attack and a weapon, etc. Suddenly dishing out 24d6 or whatever.)  The damage of an attack can't exceed the END of the character. Very simple.

 

Pushing also becomes very dramatic... not being something you can do every time... as you need to recover just to get back to normal operating levels.


You can get really specific, and make any Defenses that also would normally use END be reduced as well, until recovered. This tends to only come into play with "active defenses" like force wall/barrier, since normal resistant defense, no one buys it "costing END" even for force fields, but if they did, it would.

 

In play, this has worked really well, where heroes realize they need to Push to really hurt the big bads, or save the crashing bus, lift the battleship, etc. But they know they will be weakened and ineffective after the fact, for a couple rounds at least. So they have to be strategic with its use.

 

The only downside, is that allowing 1/2 AP pushes, can send certain attacks into really high dice, so understanding that a 70 AP/END campaign will have some 21d6 shots being thrown at least a couple times during the game, so usually it is the GM that needs to be prepared that their villains defenses are appropriate.

 

Thoughts on this? We generally like it. It helps in character construction, campaign balance, and dramatic super-combat moments.  (Heroic level games, where pushing is NOT common, really just ignore the whole END thing in general.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure I understand the effect.  Say I have a brick called Density.  They have a base 20 STR, 40 END, and 4 levels of DI in the 40 active game.  Density pushes the DI to become really dense.  Does that mean he has a 60 strength when using a pushed DI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/2 AP pushes seem really over the top to me, but if it works for your games, go for it. What happens when someone pushes and rolls unexpectedly well and kills a villain? Do your villains get built to be able to handle 35 Body of pushed attack in a 70 AP game? If so, doesn't that make a regular 70 AP attack rather ineffective? This also seems to me to encourage the "go it alone" approach, if players can fairly easily get 1.5 AP, why bother coordinating attacks, etc?

 

The math seems fine, just overall the power level seems high to me.

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, since your thread title specifically invites me, I’ll chime in.  However, at the risk of disappointing, I kind of like this concept as a game-simplifier, and as a Supers game mechanic.

To start, I think a lot depends on how other current rules for Pushing apply.  By RAW, Pushing is not something you can just choose tactically.  “Oh, it’s Firewing – OK, everyone Push to the max in the opening segment 12 volley so we can put him down quick.”

 

Consider a 4 player group, each with 12d6 attacks (selected because that’s a pretty standard Supers norm).  What will a well-defended opponent have?  Typical defenses are 20 – 25.  Give our MegaVillain 35, and normal attacks plink about 7 STUN per hit past his defenses.  If we go much higher, standard attacks become useful, which I assume is not the intent. But if everyone pushes to 18 DC in Segment 12, Firewing gets hit by a couple of attacks (and I find a 50% chance to hit pretty conservative – 3 hits seems more likely, and 4 are not out of the question) which each punch through 28 STUN.  That’s 56, 84 or 112 STUN past defenses, depending on how many hit.  I doubt Firewing will take BOD – exceeding even 25 BOD on 18 dice is pretty unlikely – but being Stunned or KOd gets a lot more likely.  And if the first hero Stuns him, the other three are pretty much guaranteed to hit.

 

If I spent an extra 6 points for +30 END, I take no effective penalty for the first Pushed attack, since my END drops from 90 to 60, I can keep going at full power afterwards.  Invest 60 points in extra END (some of which, perhaps, you offset with lower REC, since you no longer need to recover END for any reason other than Pushing) and your 5 SPD character can Push for an extra 6 DC every phase for two turns.  It becomes easy to make Pushing the norm, rather than the dramatic choice you are looking for.  Of course, capping END at 5x the campaign DC max would avoid this issue, and higher caps would at least mitigate it. 

If Pushing is only allowed for heroic actions (RAW), and not just “I want to win/get solid damage in”, then this issue is mitigated considerably.  But if it’s free as long as you accept the END cost, not so much.  I get the sense you want Pushing to be a tactical choice without the RAW “only for really heroic actions” rule.

 

The other limiting factor for Pushing has always been the EGO roll.  You don’t mention that above.  If the maximum Push follows RAW (10 AP + 1 AP per point the roll is made by), you will not get the dramatic Pushes you are looking for.  However, if it were, say, 10 AP + 5 per point the roll is made by (i.e. 1 Damage Class per point), this seems like it might work better, making the Ego roll also a limiting factor.  A character with a 14- Ego roll would be able to add 5 DC (not a lot different than the 6 added above) on an average roll.

 

Tack on “you spend the END for the amount you try to Push” and this becomes a bigger tactical gamble.  I try to Push for the full 30 AP, make, say, just the base Ego roll, get an extra 2 DCs but lose 30 END.

 

MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

 

Should the END limit (and Push costs) limit AP or DCs?  I’m inclined to go with DCs rather than AP, except that this makes the END limit below harder to balance. 

 

Should the END limit be based on only the attack, or factor in other powers?  You mention defenses, but movement also factors in.  The Brick with 70 END can punch for 14 DC, and move his Running of, say, 15 meters.  Meanwhile, the Blaster can fire off his 14 DC attack, fly 50 meters and maintain his Barrier he set up last phase, a second kick at 14 END.  Maybe the limit should be “your maximum END spend in 1 phase without Pushing is limited to 1/5 of your END stat”.  Now the Blaster in my example needs what, 180 END, instead of 70.  Not a huge impediment.  I would also keep the DC cap, largely due to things that add DCs without adding END cost. I think you still need DC caps.  END is pretty cheap, so not a huge cost to bump up the AP/DC I regularly use.  But nothing in your comments indicates that other caps will stop being enforced.   Does this mean our 70 END, 70 STR Brick cannot benefit from a Haymaker?  That seems odd.  Although a Pushed attack would be a lot more effective (especially if he buys some extra END to allow a few +4 DC pushes with no restriction on his normal damage).

 

What happens to Increased and Reduced END under this model?  Perhaps both go away, given increased END (especially on a non-attack power) seems meaningless, while reduced END seems to accomplish little.  They may be more relevant if total END usage in a phase without pushing is capped.

 

Let’s think that one through a little more.  I buy my 12d6 Blast at 2x END, so I save 20 points.  Instead of 60 END, I need 90.  An extra 30 END costs 6 points.  OK, pretty much a no brainer that I increase the END cost and buy the extra END.  I think Increased END goes away under this system.  No biggie, as one goal was eliminating END bookkeeping, and increased END really links to that resource management aspect.

Even if we get rid of Costs END, Reduced END and Increased END, Bricks using Growth or Density Increase get a break.  My 60 STR Brick paid 50 AP for his STR, and needs 60 END.  Or he can buy a 15 STR and 9 levels of Density Increase, saving 9 points and getting +9 PD and ED and -18 meters Knockback for free.

 

How do Combined or Multiple Attacks work?  If I want to add my 4d6 Flash to my 12d6 Blast, do I need 60 END, or 80 END?  I suspect 80, given I am getting a combined 16 DCs with this attack, at no penalties (other than having to pay the points for both attacks, but I have to pay the same points for a 16d6 Blast).

 

But multiple attacks?  Our 60 STR Brick wants to knock the heads of two opponents together, so he uses a full phase action, halves his DCV and takes the -2 OCV penalty to both attacks, but he also now needs to either Push (and still can only get 45 STR on each target, since he can only Push half his AP), or have 120 END instead of 60?

 

OTHER END OUTGROWTHS

 

Do I still have to pay +1/2 to make an END-using power 0 END before it can be Persistent?  That seems like a ripoff if I could have kept it Constant and never had any issue with my END.

 

What about powers with Charges?  The advantage of 0 END is buried in the limitation value, but my DC will still be capped by END, so I get no benefit, plus I lose the SuperPush your system allows to those with non-charged powers.

Hmmm…for 60 points, and 60 END, I can have a 12d6 Blast.  If I make that 3 shot Autofire (another 15 points), and buy 4 PSLs to offset the Autofire penalties (another 4 points), and bump my END to 75 (3 more points), I get to make 3 12DC attacks per phase instead of 1 for 22 points.  Looks like I have found my workaround for Multiple Attacks! 

 

Actually, it feels like “cannot be pushed” is a bigger limit in a game where Pushing is enhanced like this, even more so than in a game where pushing is common and allowed with no Heroic Action or ego roll requirements.

I have not thought through the character design issues much.  On the one hand, if everyone's END (and REC, reduced END, etc.) spends change consistently, no big deal.  But some character concepts will have to buy more END.  How many Martial Artists have 5x their AP in END now?  On the other hand, a higher SPD character gains a lot, since he no longer needs to buy the END and REC to cover his END usage in those extra phases. 

If my character is knocked out, he is now useless after he recovers to 13 STUN (say, dropped to -2 and has a 15 REC his next phase), as he also has only 13 END.  Practically, this means being taken below 0 STUN takes a character out of the fight, unless we modify the "END after recovering from being knocked out" rules.  Maybe this is OK if we want to eliminate the "falls down, gets back up again" aspect of some Hero combats.

 

There are likely to be more ripple effects that would only be discovered in play.

 

OVERALL

 

Probably needs some more in-depth design and playtesting, but I think this could be a really "Supers-feel" modifier to the END and Pushing rules.  Outside of truly heroic pushes (or specifically exhausting powers like the Human Torch's Nova Blast), how often do the characters in the source material suffer fatigue from use of their powers in combat?  Really, only in long, drawn-out combats.  This approach would remove that inconsistent END management issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eepjr24 said:

1/2 AP pushes seem really over the top to me, but if it works for your games, go for it. What happens when someone pushes and rolls unexpectedly well and kills a villain? Do your villains get built to be able to handle 35 Body of pushed attack in a 70 AP game? If so, doesn't that make a regular 70 AP attack rather ineffective? This also seems to me to encourage the "go it alone" approach, if players can fairly easily get 1.5 AP, why bother coordinating attacks, etc?

 

The math seems fine, just overall the power level seems high to me.

 

- E

 

You bring up a good point, in the decision to allow up to 1/2 AP pushes. That could be problematic/excessive... but often enough, they only need to push against the really tough guys. Since most supers have 25-35 defenses at the 70AP level, I'm not worried about out right death, though GM Option stun loss is possible. Some of the master villains are easily walking around with 50/50 hardened, and can suck up 14d6 pretty easily.


This is also playing characters at 500 to 700 points. Some of the lower level PCs... 400 pts or so... are probably 60 AP... etc. What I've found is that most players don't Push out of hand, but only if their normal attacks are proving limited effectiveness. The idea that they are half effective for the next action and probably have to blow actions to recover, is cost enough to only do it when they are willing to risk it.

 

You could easily have this rule set, but limit pushing to 1/4 active points if you feel 1/2 escalates too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, dsatow said:

I am not sure I understand the effect.  Say I have a brick called Density.  They have a base 20 STR, 40 END, and 4 levels of DI in the 40 active game.  Density pushes the DI to become really dense.  Does that mean he has a 60 strength when using a pushed DI?

 

If DI offers Strength at 1 for 1 (we never use this power, at all, so not sure what current rules say) so, are 4 levels of DI 20 points? If so, then pushing DI could go up to 30 points, or 30 more STR... 50 STR. Pushing DI and pushing STR would get you to 60, but again, I'm just not up on DI as a power and don't have the book at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DI issue, to me, is that it adds +5 STR, +1 PD, +1 ED and -2m KB resistance for 4 points because it costs END.  If I use DI to pump my STR up to the DC limit, I get the same STR, extra defense and spend less points.  Normally, this would balance out because DI costs END to maintain (although I could make it "only to activate", equate the cost of DI with the cost of STR and get the defenses for free, I have to spend END again if stunned, KOd etc. as my DI shuts off), but since I don't have an END issue under your system, the DI becomes a more beneficial approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Well, since your thread title specifically invites me, I’ll chime in.  However, at the risk of disappointing, I kind of like this concept as a game-simplifier, and as a Supers game mechanic.

To start, I think a lot depends on how other current rules for Pushing apply.  By RAW, Pushing is not something you can just choose tactically.  “Oh, it’s Firewing – OK, everyone Push to the max in the opening segment 12 volley so we can put him down quick.”

 

Yes... this was particularly addressed to you, Hugh!  :)

 

And yes, it is possible that PCs might go "OOOO big bad! Everyone push!" but that kind of tactical action could often backfire. I don't use the speed chart at all, so likely Firewing would just put all levels in Dodge or Missile Deflection (and have way more than 35 defenses in my game) and then attack next action against PCs who are weakened. (Also, my group plays more dramatically than rule/tactically for the most part, knowing that we, as a group, don't want to get bogged down in combat as technical min/max but rather as exciting story telling, so...)

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Consider a 4 player group, each with 12d6 attacks (selected because that’s a pretty standard Supers norm).  What will a well-defended opponent have?  Typical defenses are 20 – 25.  Give our MegaVillain 35, and normal attacks plink about 7 STUN per hit past his defenses.  If we go much higher, standard attacks become useful, which I assume is not the intent. But if everyone pushes to 18 DC in Segment 12, Firewing gets hit by a couple of attacks (and I find a 50% chance to hit pretty conservative – 3 hits seems more likely, and 4 are not out of the question) which each punch through 28 STUN.  That’s 56, 84 or 112 STUN past defenses, depending on how many hit.  I doubt Firewing will take BOD – exceeding even 25 BOD on 18 dice is pretty unlikely – but being Stunned or KOd gets a lot more likely.  And if the first hero Stuns him, the other three are pretty much guaranteed to hit.

 

If I spent an extra 6 points for +30 END, I take no effective penalty for the first Pushed attack, since my END drops from 90 to 60, I can keep going at full power afterwards.  Invest 60 points in extra END (some of which, perhaps, you offset with lower REC, since you no longer need to recover END for any reason other than Pushing) and your 5 SPD character can Push for an extra 6 DC every phase for two turns.  It becomes easy to make Pushing the norm, rather than the dramatic choice you are looking for.  Of course, capping END at 5x the campaign DC max would avoid this issue, and higher caps would at least mitigate it. 

 

If I found that PCs were "buying up" their END and that caused issues, I might need to put CAPS on END, but that hasn't come up. While I never really stated it, by saying "Your END reflects the AP cap of your character/the game" I think players have self-regulated... the stat basically "self-capping" at the level of the PC.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If Pushing is only allowed for heroic actions (RAW), and not just “I want to win/get solid damage in”, then this issue is mitigated considerably.  But if it’s free as long as you accept the END cost, not so much.  I get the sense you want Pushing to be a tactical choice without the RAW “only for really heroic actions” rule.

 

What we want is "dramatic because of tactical limitations"... so you use it, with the idea that you are going to be significantly limited afterwards, which is quite risky... but risk is part of being a Hero, so "When do I take the risk?" is a big part of the fun.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The other limiting factor for Pushing has always been the EGO roll.  You don’t mention that above.  If the maximum Push follows RAW (10 AP + 1 AP per point the roll is made by), you will not get the dramatic Pushes you are looking for.  However, if it were, say, 10 AP + 5 per point the roll is made by (i.e. 1 Damage Class per point), this seems like it might work better, making the Ego roll also a limiting factor.  A character with a 14- Ego roll would be able to add 5 DC (not a lot different than the 6 added above) on an average roll.

 

Tack on “you spend the END for the amount you try to Push” and this becomes a bigger tactical gamble.  I try to Push for the full 30 AP, make, say, just the base Ego roll, get an extra 2 DCs but lose 30 END.

 

I've used the Ego roll (just straight up, no minuses) and I've also gone with "You are supers. Pushing is what you do!" and not worried about, mainly because the "feel bad" moment of failing that Ego roll when you really need to be pushing is EXTREMELY punishing to the player (from actual play experience with my group). Just the chance of failure made people not willing to try, when we had the Ego roll in place.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

 

Should the END limit (and Push costs) limit AP or DCs?  I’m inclined to go with DCs rather than AP, except that this makes the END limit below harder to balance. 

 

The primary driver IS limiting DCs, as stacking DCs over AP limits is where the game can break very quickly. BUT... it has been relatively effective as an overall AP limit for the character in general build... by that I mean, no one power is over the AP limit imposed by END.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Should the END limit be based on only the attack, or factor in other powers?  You mention defenses, but movement also factors in.  The Brick with 70 END can punch for 14 DC, and move his Running of, say, 15 meters.  Meanwhile, the Blaster can fire off his 14 DC attack, fly 50 meters and maintain his Barrier he set up last phase, a second kick at 14 END.  Maybe the limit should be “your maximum END spend in 1 phase without Pushing is limited to 1/5 of your END stat”.  Now the Blaster in my example needs what, 180 END, instead of 70.  Not a huge impediment.  I would also keep the DC cap, largely due to things that add DCs without adding END cost. I think you still need DC caps.  END is pretty cheap, so not a huge cost to bump up the AP/DC I regularly use.  But nothing in your comments indicates that other caps will stop being enforced.   Does this mean our 70 END, 70 STR Brick cannot benefit from a Haymaker?  That seems odd.  Although a Pushed attack would be a lot more effective (especially if he buys some extra END to allow a few +4 DC pushes with no restriction on his normal damage).

 

What happens to Increased and Reduced END under this model?  Perhaps both go away, given increased END (especially on a non-attack power) seems meaningless, while reduced END seems to accomplish little.  They may be more relevant if total END usage in a phase without pushing is capped.

 

Let’s think that one through a little more.  I buy my 12d6 Blast at 2x END, so I save 20 points.  Instead of 60 END, I need 90.  An extra 30 END costs 6 points.  OK, pretty much a no brainer that I increase the END cost and buy the extra END.  I think Increased END goes away under this system.  No biggie, as one goal was eliminating END bookkeeping, and increased END really links to that resource management aspect.

Even if we get rid of Costs END, Reduced END and Increased END, Bricks using Growth or Density Increase get a break.  My 60 STR Brick paid 50 AP for his STR, and needs 60 END.  Or he can buy a 15 STR and 9 levels of Density Increase, saving 9 points and getting +9 PD and ED and -18 meters Knockback for free.

 

Cost END, Reduced END and Increased END just basically went out the window back when we stopped using END at all. I brought the END stat back for AP limits and enabling dramatic Pushing.  (That is the short history of our groups END rulings over 30 years.)

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How do Combined or Multiple Attacks work?  If I want to add my 4d6 Flash to my 12d6 Blast, do I need 60 END, or 80 END?  I suspect 80, given I am getting a combined 16 DCs with this attack, at no penalties (other than having to pay the points for both attacks, but I have to pay the same points for a 16d6 Blast).

 

Yes... that would be 80, if they want to do that Combined Attack without pushing. But I also like the idea that pushing for 20 IN ORDER TO DO a Combined Attack feels really right for me.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

But multiple attacks?  Our 60 STR Brick wants to knock the heads of two opponents together, so he uses a full phase action, halves his DCV and takes the -2 OCV penalty to both attacks, but he also now needs to either Push (and still can only get 45 STR on each target, since he can only Push half his AP), or have 120 END instead of 60?

 

Interesting. Multiple Attacks in supers has really not come up that much. I'm not sure how, or if I've needed to rule on this. It comes up all the time in low level, guns and martial arts games, but I'm struggling to think of when I've had a PC ever done Multiple Attacks. I'll have to reflect on this.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

OTHER END OUTGROWTHS

 

Do I still have to pay +1/2 to make an END-using power 0 END before it can be Persistent?  That seems like a ripoff if I could have kept it Constant and never had any issue with my END.

 

Nope. Constant would be enough.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

What about powers with Charges?  The advantage of 0 END is buried in the limitation value, but my DC will still be capped by END, so I get no benefit, plus I lose the SuperPush your system allows to those with non-charged powers.

Hmmm…for 60 points, and 60 END, I can have a 12d6 Blast.  If I make that 3 shot Autofire (another 15 points), and buy 4 PSLs to offset the Autofire penalties (another 4 points), and bump my END to 75 (3 more points), I get to make 3 12DC attacks per phase instead of 1 for 22 points.  Looks like I have found my workaround for Multiple Attacks!

 

That isn't "3 12d6 attacks" it is one attack that has the chance of hitting up to two more times... right? Or have they changed AF rules and I missed that?

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Actually, it feels like “cannot be pushed” is a bigger limit in a game where Pushing is enhanced like this, even more so than in a game where pushing is common and allowed with no Heroic Action or ego roll requirements.

I have not thought through the character design issues much.  On the one hand, if everyone's END (and REC, reduced END, etc.) spends change consistently, no big deal.  But some character concepts will have to buy more END.  How many Martial Artists have 5x their AP in END now?  On the other hand, a higher SPD character gains a lot, since he no longer needs to buy the END and REC to cover his END usage in those extra phases.

 

So... not using the Speed Chart, higher Speeds act differently and don't automatically grant assured extra phases/actions... so this is not an issue for us, and in fact balances the somewhat severe nerf I've given to enhanced SPD.

 

Cannot Be Pushed is certainly a bigger limit, and if I had the wrong players, I'd have to watch them putting it on powers that would never likely be pushed in the first place... but I don't see my players doing that.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

If my character is knocked out, he is now useless after he recovers to 13 STUN (say, dropped to -2 and has a 15 REC his next phase), as he also has only 13 END.  Practically, this means being taken below 0 STUN takes a character out of the fight, unless we modify the "END after recovering from being knocked out" rules.  Maybe this is OK if we want to eliminate the "falls down, gets back up again" aspect of some Hero combats.

 

Yes! This is actually a big benefit of the system, IMO. You drop below 0 Stun, you are going to need some significant recovery time in order to be dishing out damage again. I've actually liked how that plays out, where there is no "pop back up in fighting form, even though I only have 1 stun" situations.

 

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

There are likely to be more ripple effects that would only be discovered in play.

 

OVERALL

 

Probably needs some more in-depth design and playtesting, but I think this could be a really "Supers-feel" modifier to the END and Pushing rules.  Outside of truly heroic pushes (or specifically exhausting powers like the Human Torch's Nova Blast), how often do the characters in the source material suffer fatigue from use of their powers in combat?  Really, only in long, drawn-out combats.  This approach would remove that inconsistent END management issue.

 

Exactly. I always loved the CONCEPT of Endurance cost, but never the application of it in Hero. I want "fatigue" and "exhaustion" to be dramatic moments in the game, not book-keeping. This has helped that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The DI issue, to me, is that it adds +5 STR, +1 PD, +1 ED and -2m KB resistance for 4 points because it costs END.  If I use DI to pump my STR up to the DC limit, I get the same STR, extra defense and spend less points.  Normally, this would balance out because DI costs END to maintain (although I could make it "only to activate", equate the cost of DI with the cost of STR and get the defenses for free, I have to spend END again if stunned, KOd etc. as my DI shuts off), but since I don't have an END issue under your system, the DI becomes a more beneficial approach.

 

I'll have to think about this... and wonder if maybe, because it is more beneficial to have STR and Defenses that can shut off if I'm not actively using it... that might make DI worth taking. (To look on it from a different perspective.)  Maybe it becomes too cost effective, but I always tend to play up collateral damage in my supers games, and any PC with significant DI instead of just straight STR would be collapsing floor, leaving footprint craters, sinking up to his ankles or waist in soft ground, etc. That could actually be really fun, if the player was into it, but I'd totally make the PC afflicted by the results of the significant density/weight gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Yes... this was particularly addressed to you, Hugh!  :)

 

And yes, it is possible that PCs might go "OOOO big bad! Everyone push!" but that kind of tactical action could often backfire. I don't use the speed chart at all, so likely Firewing would just put all levels in Dodge or Missile Deflection (and have way more than 35 defenses in my game) and then attack next action against PCs who are weakened. (Also, my group plays more dramatically than rule/tactically for the most part, knowing that we, as a group, don't want to get bogged down in combat as technical min/max but rather as exciting story telling, so...)

 

 

Without knowing all the mechanics of your changes, all we have to do is wait for the Big Bad to make one attack - then we retaliate with Pushed attacks, and he cannot abort to turtle up.  BTW, what stops the Bad Guys from pushing the same way, or will only PCs be allowed these significant benefits?

 

12 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

That isn't "3 12d6 attacks" it is one attack that has the chance of hitting up to two more times... right? Or have they changed AF rules and I missed that?

 

My +4 PSLs is wrong - I was thinking Multiple Attack.  Let's rethink:

 

For 60 points, and 60 END, I can have a 12d6 Blast.  If I make that 3 shot Autofire (another 15 points), and buy 4 2 point OCV levels (another 8 points), and bump my END to 75 (3 more points), I have spent 28 points.  I now have +4 OCV, so if I would have hit with my base 12d6 attack at normal OCV, my Autofire attack hits three times.

 

I could instead have bought a 15d6 Blast with the same levels and END bump, which would average 10.5 more damage past defenses.  As long as each 12d6 hit gets 5.25 or more past defenses, the Autofire is the better choice.  And if I push the Autofire attack...three hits at 18d6 vs one hit at 22 1/2d6.  Yup-this looks like my Multiple Attack workaround.

 

19 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

Yes! This is actually a big benefit of the system, IMO. You drop below 0 Stun, you are going to need some significant recovery time in order to be dishing out damage again. I've actually liked how that plays out, where there is no "pop back up in fighting form, even though I only have 1 stun" situations.

 

Depends, again, on the desired game style.  It can be frustrating (and boring) for one lucky shot at the start of the combat to take out one player's character from a lengthy combat.  This exacerbates that problem.  It also removes a different "dramatic combat moment" when that KO'd hero recovers just in time to make a key action.

 

4 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

I'll have to think about this... and wonder if maybe, because it is more beneficial to have STR and Defenses that can shut off if I'm not actively using it... that might make DI worth taking. (To look on it from a different perspective.)  Maybe it becomes too cost effective, but I always tend to play up collateral damage in my supers games, and any PC with significant DI instead of just straight STR would be collapsing floor, leaving footprint craters, sinking up to his ankles or waist in soft ground, etc. That could actually be really fun, if the player was into it, but I'd totally make the PC afflicted by the results of the significant density/weight gain.

 

If you make the player suffer inordinately for the mass aspect of DI (especially when few other powers get these "logical consequences" like "make a PER roll to spot the obstacle and a DEX roll to avoid it if you do see it, both at -1 per 10 meters velocity - when you are flying that fast, it's hard to avoid the trees"; "your Shrinking stealth bonus is also a penalty to others hearing you talk, and to PRE attacks, as you are itty bitty"), it's no wonder no one buys the power.  The source material often sees the pavement crack, but rarely if ever impedes the character more than that.  Simple solution, though - 1 meter of Flight (oh, and I don't even have to spend END to hover in your game...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Does this mean our 70 END, 70 STR Brick cannot benefit from a Haymaker?  That seems odd.

 

Meant to reply to this... and yes, it does mean this. It does seem odd in a way, but it is the fundamental piece of the AP/END/DC cap concept... "You don't get to go over your character cap in DCs without pushing, no matter what maneuvers you stack."

 

One PC is a 40 STR flyer, EB, forcefield type. She has 70 END, and uses Haymakers and flight maneuvers to get it up to 12-14 dice, which is her limit. Exactly the kind of thing intended by this ruling. And yes, Martial Artists are the biggest abusers of the stacking DCs in my experience, and this rule was specifically designed to make sure their actual power level was reflected. Not "Hey, I'm just a skilled normal!" but "Hey... I can deal 15d6 with my quarter staff!" so they better have 75 END on the sheet if that build is allowed/makes sense otherwise in the game.

 

That is ultimately the core piece that I want... which is that your END is a hard cap on how much damage a PC can deal... pushing allows you to break that. And this is with your own abilities powers... not using the environment.  So a PC who pilots a star destroyer into the villains HQ is not limited by their END to 12d6 (heh)... because it is game elements/the game environment that is doing the damage, not the PCs level of abilities.


If I, as a GM, allow an item... say a really powerful weapon... into the game (say a Gauntlet of Might or the Starsword of Empirakill! or whatever) then that is now part of the environment, and if a PC was to wield it, it would be the weapon doing the damage, etc. There is a difference between the imaginary elements of the shared mental space we play in, vs. the mechanical aspects encoded on a character sheet.

 

I think, with our group, there had been such a cost savings on not having to worry about spending ANYTHING on END previously, that suddenly having to cough up 10-15 points on a character who has already used up all 637 points they had available... that was a cost. (Especially for Martial Artists). New characters... well, the first thing you buy is END... saying "Ok, I'm a 75 AP character, so 75 END is my first expense." and go from there. Then players build to that imposed limit.


Again, has worked so far, but it is good to have external eyes on this that can point out weak points where it might break down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Without knowing all the mechanics of your changes, all we have to do is wait for the Big Bad to make one attack - then we retaliate with Pushed attacks, and he cannot abort to turtle up.  BTW, what stops the Bad Guys from pushing the same way, or will only PCs be allowed these significant benefits?

 

Oh... the bad guys can push as well... but again, don't necessarily do it as it would leave them weakened.  The solo bad guy is always at a disadvantage in Hero. Numbers almost always win out, so I tend to build those with the intent of really standing toe-to-toe with a team of heroes, they will have massive defenses.

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Depends, again, on the desired game style.  It can be frustrating (and boring) for one lucky shot at the start of the combat to take out one player's character from a lengthy combat.  This exacerbates that problem.  It also removes a different "dramatic combat moment" when that KO'd hero recovers just in time to make a key action.

 

We have a Luck Chit system in place that allows for these dramatic moments, which has been there since before this rule, to mitigate the crappy dice rolls that make the game unfun.  Also, the NPCs and bad guys have chits to mitigate the crappy dice rolls that make the fight undramatic. That system allows things as simple as re-rolls, or actual director stance moments for dramatic story shifts. It allows for a lot of the "unfun" moments to be mitigated, whether based on RAW rulings or house rules. Even by RAW, a lucky shot can take a PC out in one shot, so, I don't see this as any different.

12 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If you make the player suffer inordinately for the mass aspect of DI (especially when few other powers get these "logical consequences" like "make a PER roll to spot the obstacle and a DEX roll to avoid it if you do see it, both at -1 per 10 meters velocity - when you are flying that fast, it's hard to avoid the trees"; "your Shrinking stealth bonus is also a penalty to others hearing you talk, and to PRE attacks, as you are itty bitty"), it's no wonder no one buys the power.  The source material often sees the pavement crack, but rarely if ever impedes the character more than that.  Simple solution, though - 1 meter of Flight (oh, and I don't even have to spend END to hover in your game...).

 

Well, actually, often those things DO come up in our games. How does someone hear the small guy talk? Flying fast into obstacle area, yep... better make a roll with minuses. Not often, but both those situations have arisen in the past in my games. Growth smashing things up and causing disruptions when used in urban settings... serious repercussions of super powers in general. We did have on character, now that I think of it, Coal, who was a "Thing" like character but would heat up when struck with energy... and he always had to stay out of normal buildings, his own specially designed apartment was all steel and concrete on one level. He was socially isolated, and really liked being with supers, because he could be around people that didn't automatically get hurt by his presence. All of that was by player design, as well. We talked it out, and it was a big part of why the player enjoyed playing Coal. Again... it isn't about screwing the player, but that we, as a group, really enjoy playing in a "world with powers" and having nods to how that completely changes things from normal.

32 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

For 60 points, and 60 END, I can have a 12d6 Blast.  If I make that 3 shot Autofire (another 15 points), and buy 4 2 point OCV levels (another 8 points), and bump my END to 75 (3 more points), I have spent 28 points.  I now have +4 OCV, so if I would have hit with my base 12d6 attack at normal OCV, my Autofire attack hits three times. 

 

I could instead have bought a 15d6 Blast with the same levels and END bump, which would average 10.5 more damage past defenses.  As long as each 12d6 hit gets 5.25 or more past defenses, the Autofire is the better choice.  And if I push the Autofire attack...three hits at 18d6 vs one hit at 22 1/2d6.  Yup-this looks like my Multiple Attack workaround.

 

Thinking about this, it is basically saying that Autofire (which I swear was a 1/2 Advantage, but maybe that was old rules) could be over-powered in this END set-up. Since even my most min-maxing player has never brought it up, maybe that is just because no one has thought of it. Certainly worth watching. If Autofire was +1/2, so 90 END was required for a 12d6 AF attack, then that would be a moment where we are saying, "Hey... 90 END/AP... too high for this game." In many ways, looking at the END level as a quick indicator of "What exactly is ramping your END up so high?"   Remember, the key is the END is your "character limit." 

 

So maybe the simple answer is that, with this version of END, Autfire must be bought at +1/2 level or higher... the +1/4 is not used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:
43 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Without knowing all the mechanics of your changes, all we have to do is wait for the Big Bad to make one attack - then we retaliate with Pushed attacks, and he cannot abort to turtle up.  BTW, what stops the Bad Guys from pushing the same way, or will only PCs be allowed these significant benefits?

 

Oh... the bad guys can push as well... but again, don't necessarily do it as it would leave them weakened.  The solo bad guy is always at a disadvantage in Hero. Numbers almost always win out, so I tend to build those with the intent of really standing toe-to-toe with a team of heroes, they will have massive defenses.

 

On this point... I have had a couple situations where the big bad pushed an attack to really lay-out one of the heroes. Both times were in desperation... one to allow a villain to get away (dramatic end to the fight... send the PC flying, and as the team regroups to grab their friend and focus on the villain... he's gone).  Another was a classic slog, heroes battling a very powerful villain, wearing him down, but taking heavy hits... and one guy, the tough brick of the group, went toe-to-toe, egging the villain on, "come at me bro!" kind of moment, so that the villain pushed... hit him with like a 30d6 EB that buried the PC in a hillside... but it left the villain weakened enough that the others could focus on attacking, knowing the villains attacks were now weakend (they didn't need to hold actions to dodge, etc.) and they piled on to finish the guy off. It was very cool and dramatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:
1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The DI issue, to me, is that it adds +5 STR, +1 PD, +1 ED and -2m KB resistance for 4 points because it costs END.  If I use DI to pump my STR up to the DC limit, I get the same STR, extra defense and spend less points.  Normally, this would balance out because DI costs END to maintain (although I could make it "only to activate", equate the cost of DI with the cost of STR and get the defenses for free, I have to spend END again if stunned, KOd etc. as my DI shuts off), but since I don't have an END issue under your system, the DI becomes a more beneficial approach.

 

I'll have to think about this... and wonder if maybe, because it is more beneficial to have STR and Defenses that can shut off if I'm not actively using it... that might make DI worth taking. (To look on it from a different perspective.)  Maybe it becomes too cost effective, but I always tend to play up collateral damage in my supers games, and any PC with significant DI instead of just straight STR would be collapsing floor, leaving footprint craters, sinking up to his ankles or waist in soft ground, etc. That could actually be really fun, if the player was into it, but I'd totally make the PC afflicted by the results of the significant density/weight gain.

 

So, if we took +5 STR, +1PD +1 ED and -2"KB... and simply made them "nonpersistent" instead of "Costs END" what would be the point cost?  9 points at -1/4 is what... 7 points? Should that be the cost?  (I'm actually not sure why DI is so cheap in the first place, as getting 9 points down to 4 points would require -1 1/4 which is a lot of limitations. Why is DI so cheap?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, it seems over complicated for little gain.  Its your campaign and if your players understand it and are willing, I say go for it.  It looks like you've customized your game to be more narrative, so I'd love to hear how they received the house rule.  Most narrative players I see like simple, if x-then rules rather than quantitative/extended rules (if x >= y <z then a elsif x<y elsif x=0 then b else c)

 

Though it got me thinking if I wanted to get rid of End usage but still allow pushing, how would I do it?  I'd probably do it as if you push make an Ego roll -1 per END the power normally cost, -1 per previous pushing roll, -1 per previous failed roll.  Failure means you would be stunned.  If it was a supers game and I'd want the do or die push, I'd have them do the Ego roll after the push.  If it was a more heroic game, I'd have them do it before the push as a condition of the push.  Maybe instead of being stunned, a combat modifier of -1 OCV & DCV cumulative per failed roll until the hero rests for 5 minutes out of combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part, it isn't complicated at all.

 

END is bought to reflect the AP/DC cap of the character. Can't do more DCs than END.  Full stop for 90% of the game.

 

Pushing can be up to 1/2 your AP, but it temporarily reduces your ability to attack. This usually plays out as 1) Don't really need to push, so don't. 2) Only push for the big finishing blow. 3) If you do push and the fight isn't over, you spend three or so actions hard breathing to get back into the fight. 

 

All the details aside... that is how it tends to play out, and it does what we want, to provide a dramatic option in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Oh... the bad guys can push as well... but again, don't necessarily do it as it would leave them weakened.  The solo bad guy is always at a disadvantage in Hero. Numbers almost always win out, so I tend to build those with the intent of really standing toe-to-toe with a team of heroes, they will have massive defenses.

 

So does that mean they can't damage the Bad Guy unless they push?  I've been using 60 AP as my benchmark, but you tend to toss out 70 - 75, so let's move to that standard.  For Big Bad Guy (BBG) to take an average of, say, 5 STUN from a 15d6 attack, he needs about 47 defenses.  Let's round that down to 45 - he takes an average of 7.5 from a 15d6 Blast, or 4 from a 14d6 normal Blast.

 

Our Hero pushes.  Now his average STUN damage is 34 or 28.5 past defenses.  With a decent CON (40+ is not unreasonable), BBG does  not face much risk of being Stunned.  It seems like the best approach against BBG is either:

 

(a)   Everyone delay.  When BBG picks a target, he Aborts to minimize his chances of being hit *.  Everyone else can now fire off coordinated pushed attacks and hope to stun him.  If it does not take him down, everyone goes full defense while they recover END to try again.

 

(b)  Everyone delay.  When BBG picks a target, he Aborts to minimize his chances of being hit *.  One character now Pushes, to get some meaningful STUN past defenses, and the rest of the team works to defend him while he gets his wind back.

 

(c)  Whittle him down with normal attacks with agonizing slowness, as the combat drags on and on and on.

 

* To be fair, this is also a solid strategy under RAW.  And if one guy takes a hard hit, he pulls back to recover.

 

10 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

We have a Luck Chit system in place that allows for these dramatic moments, which has been there since before this rule, to mitigate the crappy dice rolls that make the game unfun.  Also, the NPCs and bad guys have chits to mitigate the crappy dice rolls that make the fight undramatic. That system allows things as simple as re-rolls, or actual director stance moments for dramatic story shifts. It allows for a lot of the "unfun" moments to be mitigated, whether based on RAW rulings or house rules. Even by RAW, a lucky shot can take a PC out in one shot, so, I don't see this as any different.

 

Games vary, if course, but I find that early lucky shot rarely takes the hero below -19 STUN, so at least he will recover in a fight going on for a couple of turns.  Often, it's one REC to be conscious, and a second (maybe two more) to have enough END to contribute for at least a couple of phases.  Although using STUN for END to get that one key maneuver that turns the tide of the battle is a dramatic moment in itself.  Your model removes that possibility, as well as meaning KOd means a lot of recoveries needed.  It sounds like your model has self-corrected for that if people are recovering 70 - 75 END in three recoveries, though.  

 

10 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

Well, actually, often those things DO come up in our games. How does someone hear the small guy talk? Flying fast into obstacle area, yep... better make a roll with minuses. Not often, but both those situations have arisen in the past in my games. Growth smashing things up and causing disruptions when used in urban settings... serious repercussions of super powers in general. We did have on character, now that I think of it, Coal, who was a "Thing" like character but would heat up when struck with energy... and he always had to stay out of normal buildings, his own specially designed apartment was all steel and concrete on one level. He was socially isolated, and really liked being with supers, because he could be around people that didn't automatically get hurt by his presence. All of that was by player design, as well. We talked it out, and it was a big part of why the player enjoyed playing Coal. Again... it isn't about screwing the player, but that we, as a group, really enjoy playing in a "world with powers" and having nods to how that completely changes things from normal.

 

"Not often"?  So sometimes the small guy is audible, but sometimes he isn't?  If you want to take logic into superpowers:

 

 - how does an invisible person see?  Light passes through their eyes.

 - how does a desolid character breathe?  There is no way to exhale or inhale when your tissue is incorporeal.  Shouldn't be able to talk either - no way to force air past the vocal cords or change the sounds with lips and tongue.

 

Lots of easy "logically, wouldn't X happen" gets ignored in all action genres.

 

10 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

Thinking about this, it is basically saying that Autofire (which I swear was a 1/2 Advantage, but maybe that was old rules) could be over-powered in this END set-up. Since even my most min-maxing player has never brought it up, maybe that is just because no one has thought of it. Certainly worth watching. If Autofire was +1/2, so 90 END was required for a 12d6 AF attack, then that would be a moment where we are saying, "Hey... 90 END/AP... too high for this game." In many ways, looking at the END level as a quick indicator of "What exactly is ramping your END up so high?"   Remember, the key is the END is your "character limit." 

 

So maybe the simple answer is that, with this version of END, Autfire must be bought at +1/2 level or higher... the +1/4 is not used.

 

Autofire was +1/2 for several editions, with 5 shots (10,, I think, way back when).  +1/4 is now for 2 - 3 shots, +1/2 gets you 5.  That brings our comparison to a 15d6 Blast versus a 10d6, five shot Autofire blast.  Either needs that base 75 END.  So I can buy the Autofire blast for the same price as the 15 DC Blast.  Buy 3 2 point OCV levels for 6 points.  Buy another 75 END for 15 points.  Now I can push that AF blast twice before dropping my END to the point I cannot use it effectively.  For 21 points, I have the same chance of hitting with three 15d6 blasts as the other guy has to hit with one.  Add four more points (2 more OCV levels) and you can hit with 5 Blasts on the same roll everyone else gets one hit with - pretty much guaranteed some of them will hit.

 

Of course, the easy answer is that you can only buy enough END to use your highest AP power - but what about those oddball powers that need more AP, but are reasonable abilities that add to the game?  If I have one of those, I need enough END for it to work. but that extra END can also allow me to Push a more standard attack power without being impeded (other than being unable to use that oddball high AP power) afterwards.  As well, if you routinely need to Push to 20+d6 just to be effective, you have also effectively placed "cannot push" on your power, which may be painful (or not - just put a 15d6 Blast in a multipower with the autofire power).

 

But if we assume BBG and his 45 ED, the AF blast hitting 5 times will average 7.5 x 5 = 37.5 STUN past defenses, which is still better than the 34 a 22.5d6 Blast will average.  And a normal (non-pushed, non-autofire) power is useless.

 

Why not just establish that the campaign max is 75 AP attack powers, and leave END out of it.  No 11 point "character tax" to get END up to 75.  Buy REC only to the extent you want to recover STUN (maybe the price of REC has to drop as a consequence, maybe not).  You don't need END, and you can Push just as you described above.  If you Push, you are automatically Fatigued - for every 2 DC you Pushed, your maximum DC is reduced by 1.  You recover 5  "penalty DCs" per recovery (or you recover one per 5 REC, if you want to let the high REC characters get their wind back faster).  Same result, but no need for an END stat, and no issues with unusual powers that are allowed to break the AP, but not the DC, cap.

 

BTW, while we have talked quite a bit about buying up END to allow a push or two without penalty, you have not commented on the issue with Charges (i.e. that they currently build in 0 END).  Do you give the players a higher limitation (+1/2 would work under RAW) for charges to compensate for the fact that the built-in 0 END has no benefit now?  Do you raise the limitation more for the fact that "cannot push" is more limiting in your game?  Let me guess...no one in your game takes powers with Charges.

 

Maybe some of the issues that don't come up are because your players realize your system makes those options hopelessly ineffective.

 

10 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

On this point... I have had a couple situations where the big bad pushed an attack to really lay-out one of the heroes. Both times were in desperation... one to allow a villain to get away (dramatic end to the fight... send the PC flying, and as the team regroups to grab their friend and focus on the villain... he's gone).  Another was a classic slog, heroes battling a very powerful villain, wearing him down, but taking heavy hits... and one guy, the tough brick of the group, went toe-to-toe, egging the villain on, "come at me bro!" kind of moment, so that the villain pushed... hit him with like a 30d6 EB that buried the PC in a hillside... but it left the villain weakened enough that the others could focus on attacking, knowing the villains attacks were now weakend (they didn't need to hold actions to dodge, etc.) and they piled on to finish the guy off. It was very cool and dramatic.

 

Why didn't the  Big Bad just turtle up in full defense mode?  If it works should all the heroes try to strike with Pushed attacks, why doesn't it work when the BBG is trying to catch his breath?  None of those defensive choices have any END cost under your system, nor are they (as I understand it) reduced for having END lowered.  Of course, any given character may (should!) make personality-based sub-optimal decisions.  If the BBG in question was easily goaded, he probably wasn't the type to turtle up, Dodge, etc. 

 

ASIDE:  I once had a player ask if he could make an EGO roll for his overconfident (20 pts) character to be allowed to abort to Dodge in phase 12 so he could get a recovery and not be KOd by the likely hit.  No one at the table would have denied him the choice of dodging, but he decided that the character had to really push himself to recognize he could lose here.  He rolled a 5.  The Dodge worked (he was not hit, but he would have been without the Dodge).  He dragged the battle out long enough for the rest of the team to achieve their objective, from which he was distracting the BBG.  We remember that game 25+ years later.

 

10 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

So, if we took +5 STR, +1PD +1 ED and -2"KB... and simply made them "nonpersistent" instead of "Costs END" what would be the point cost?  9 points at -1/4 is what... 7 points? Should that be the cost?  (I'm actually not sure why DI is so cheap in the first place, as getting 9 points down to 4 points would require -1 1/4 which is a lot of limitations. Why is DI so cheap?)

 

Fair question - I was surprised it was 4 points, as it was always 5 (since losing the CON and other bonuses and dropping from 10).9/1.5 for Costs END works out to 6.  Call Increased Mass -1/4 (teammates can't easily carry him; issues arise, but they are minor and/or infrequent) and we'd be close enough to 5 points to call it a day.  It's not like it ever provided leaping or figured characteristics.  For just Nonpersistent, and a -1/4 "mass increases" limitation, 6 points would nail it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I had some further DI thoughts, but I am going to move those to another thread, as they are a sidetrack here.

 

Clearly, we will not see Automatons selling back all of their END in your model, but they can instead limit powers that Cannot be Pushed, so that's a reasonable tradeoff, especially as you note you have increased the value of that limitation.

 

I also realized the power I want to take in your game more than anything else (even more than Autofire, although since it includes attack powers, maybe I will make it Autofire as well so it really hurts).

 

I will be playing a character who manipulates biological, chemical and physical energy (or casting spells that do similar things).  Among these powers, he will have a suite of Adjuistment Powers that affect END.  Using your 70 - 75 AP game standard, that should include:

 

 - 7d6 END Drain.  That will average 22.5 rolled, halved because END is defensive, = 11 points of END lost per hit.  Who needs Autofire?  My target is down 11 DCs.  Maybe an AoE version to get groups of enemies (Selective for greater pain).  I don't really need 11 DCs down to make campaign norm attack powers ineffectual.

 

 - 12d6 END Aid - that will add as much as 36 CP worth of END.  I probably want it to fade a bit slower, so that I can buff the team up in advance - say 5d6, fades 5 points per hour.  That will get 30 maximum Aid, halved for a defensive power = +15 CP worth of END, or +75 END.  That's two free Pushes of a 75 AP power each.  Of course, I could Push the Aid, since Pushing is just a tactic, and requires no special heroic circumstances, right?

 

 - Healing END will help after the fact.  I can have 6d6, Reuse Every Turn, for 75 AP.  That will average 21/2 = 10 CP = 50 END, wiping out one Push.  Maybe an AoE version (perhaps Selective again) to help the whole team at once.

 

Absorption to END could be cool as well, but that's a bit outside my concept.

 

We probably have to ban, or severely nerf, Adjustment Powers to END.  But the concept above seems a reasonable one.  Spells like Dispel Exhaustion or Waves of Fatigue certainly seem reasonable in a Fantasy campaign. 

 

This is an outgrowth of the use of END as an "AP Cap" stat that allows Pushing, really, as END is pretty cheap.  Raising thje price of END would also address this, but that just increases the "character tax".   I don't see PCs deviating by much in their END scores, so this is more like a character tax based on the campaign AP limits, especially as it sounds like I can't buy additional END beyond my expected maximum AP.

 

The Character Tax aspect could be avoided by a campaign standard - e.g. this is a 75 AP game, so every PC gets 75 END as a base.  Now we can modify the price of END to suit the desired Adjustment Power results, as well as the desired CP savings if a character chooses to have below campaign standard AP caps, or must have that one power that exceeds the cap.

 

Ultimately, I think the kinks can be worked out - and I really think this could be a cool approach to Supers by removal of END bookkeeping and making Pushing not something one can easily "buy" just by (RAW) spending points on EGO and END.  It is a significant change from the Hero Standard Rules, but would be great fodder for 7e, or for a future APG (I wonder if Steve is looking...I'll send him a message).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So does that mean they can't damage the Bad Guy unless they push?  I've been using 60 AP as my benchmark, but you tend to toss out 70 - 75, so let's move to that standard.  For Big Bad Guy (BBG) to take an average of, say, 5 STUN from a 15d6 attack, he needs about 47 defenses.  Let's round that down to 45 - he takes an average of 7.5 from a 15d6 Blast, or 4 from a 14d6 normal Blast.

 

Our Hero pushes.  Now his average STUN damage is 34 or 28.5 past defenses.  With a decent CON (40+ is not unreasonable), BBG does  not face much risk of being Stunned.  It seems like the best approach against BBG is either:

 

(a)   Everyone delay.  When BBG picks a target, he Aborts to minimize his chances of being hit *.  Everyone else can now fire off coordinated pushed attacks and hope to stun him.  If it does not take him down, everyone goes full defense while they recover END to try again.

 

(b)  Everyone delay.  When BBG picks a target, he Aborts to minimize his chances of being hit *.  One character now Pushes, to get some meaningful STUN past defenses, and the rest of the team works to defend him while he gets his wind back.

 

(c)  Whittle him down with normal attacks with agonizing slowness, as the combat drags on and on and on.

 

* To be fair, this is also a solid strategy under RAW.  And if one guy takes a hard hit, he pulls back to recover.

 

Sometimes the big bads are tough enough that pushing is the only thing that will get significant damage through.  And for the most part, Damage Reduction is key. Little bits get through, but big, overwhelming swing shots are muted.

 

15 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Games vary, if course, but I find that early lucky shot rarely takes the hero below -19 STUN, so at least he will recover in a fight going on for a couple of turns.  Often, it's one REC to be conscious, and a second (maybe two more) to have enough END to contribute for at least a couple of phases.  Although using STUN for END to get that one key maneuver that turns the tide of the battle is a dramatic moment in itself.  Your model removes that possibility, as well as meaning KOd means a lot of recoveries needed.  It sounds like your model has self-corrected for that if people are recovering 70 - 75 END in three recoveries, though.  

 

Back when we used the SPD chart, I don't remember fights going on more than two turns at most, so -19 (or anything below -10) was likely "out for the fight" anyway, at least in my experience. As for being KO'd as a PC, it happens, but rarely. It isn't a common event that every fight, you go below 0 Stun and come back as a regular thing during a fight. It is a big deal if you've been hit enough to go to zero. I can only be anecdotal about this, but it hasn't been punishing.

Also... our combats tend to move in and out of combat time a lot. A few rounds (say a turn on the SPD chart in your world), then the enemy breaks, or the first wave is down and the PCs move forward, we "go non-combat" and essentially everyone recovers up as we role play out the moments in between fights. Tend to avoid one long slog of a combat. That may very well be a style thing, but we've done it so long that it just happens. Part of my GMing... realizing the fight is no longer "fun" for the players, in that we are just grinding mechanics, so provide a narrative break... reflecting more the ebb and flow of combat (flurry of activity... then periods of inaction... another flurry... etc.). If it happens to be the culminating battle, then yeah, if you get below zero, you might be significantly out of that particular fight.

 

And recovering all 75 stun? No... but two, three recoveries to get back 37 END... because you pushed the full 1/2 AP?  Sure.

 

15 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why didn't the  Big Bad just turtle up in full defense mode?  If it works should all the heroes try to strike with Pushed attacks, why doesn't it work when the BBG is trying to catch his breath?  None of those defensive choices have any END cost under your system, nor are they (as I understand it) reduced for having END lowered.  Of course, any given character may (should!) make personality-based sub-optimal decisions.  If the BBG in question was easily goaded, he probably wasn't the type to turtle up, Dodge, etc. 

 

In this case, just going defensive didn't mean he wasn't going to get hit. The PC  in question had already DCV drained the area (he is a brick/earthshaper, and turned the area to mud, personal immunity DCV drain kind of thing) and so hitting the bad guy was more possible... but going 0DCV and being totally open to a pushed shot, vs. slightly lower DCV where a pushed shot might be missed... that is a big deal) one PC was distracted, another down and a third spent time healing/bringing back that third... there was a swarm of aliens also attacking the big bad who struggled to hurt him but helped distract... so ultimately, turtling was simply not a good option.

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I also realized the power I want to take in your game more than anything else (even more than Autofire, although since it includes attack powers, maybe I will make it Autofire as well so it really hurts).

 

I will be playing a character who manipulates biological, chemical and physical energy (or casting spells that do similar things).  Among these powers, he will have a suite of Adjuistment Powers that affect END.  Using your 70 - 75 AP game standard, that should include:

 

This is the exact "thought process" I tend to avoid at a Social Contract level. If a player's idea of a "character" is reading the rules and finding the most broken combination of abilities, then they aren't playing in my game in the first place. That is D&D thinking... where the game is designed to reward the players who know all the details and pick the right character with the right feats, in the right combination, etc.

 

I've posted elsewhere that I have a bit of a test. I used to hand the BBB to someone new and say "Peruse this and tell me what you think" and see what their response was. If they came back with "Oh, cool, I can be any character I want... so I can make that acrobatic swordsman... super Errol Flynn type I've always wanted. (or whatever character seems neat)"  Sounds cool, let's build that guy together. If they come back with "So, reading this, I should be playing a desolid mental attack character so I can never be hit but can attack vs. no real defenses generally" then I take the book back and show them the door. That person would not fit the social contract of our play group.

 

Now... if a solid, playable and interesting character concept involved END draining of some kind, then that is a question we would deal with on an individual basis. Just like there are a lot of character concepts that would break a game and make it unfun (mentalist characters for the most part... Captain NND Multi-power Guy... etc.) Not all concepts are playable, and no ruleset is immune to abuse. Trying to create an "abuse free" concept is impossible. Heck... simple "Glass Cannon Man!" is abusive in the right situation. What is the player of Normal Guy with 30d6 EB really trying to do? Is there drama and narrative in this character, or do they just want that one moment when they blast the bad guy from behind and spoil the big showdown 'just because."  Glass Cannon man could be really interesting in the right narrative bent, or could be disruptive of the shared imaginary space... player intent is everything.

 

I will say that personally I do not understand, at all, the mindset of reading the rules and generating a character based on that. Instead, I have a character concept in mind, inspired by literature/comics/media/whatever... then I see how the rules let me bring it to life. That is role playing... the former is rule playing. It ijust proving "I can read detail and I'm a good coder" which is all well and good, but really, that is what you come to the table for? To prove you know the books better than someone else? (I see this all the time with D&D, which is why I don't play that at all, and loathe "system mastery" as a goal. System mastery should only matter in how well it makes rules invisible and facilitates the Story, rather than being the goal in and of itself.)

 

15 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why not just establish that the campaign max is 75 AP attack powers, and leave END out of it.  No 11 point "character tax" to get END up to 75.

 

Because campaign limits aren't the issue. Particular character "level" or limits are. This is a big gaming world, and 50 END/AP crime fighter martial artist can exist in world with 80 END/AP national super-hero and 100 END/AP world beater... and they might meet or team-up. Daredevil and Thor and not built on the same END/AP limits. Not everyone in the team is the same END/AP level (though they are close in current incarnation). And I just like using a stat already on the page that was getting no use in our game. Also, that "tax" on playing a character who is higher END/AP was part of the thing. (I agree that possibly END needs to cost more.)

 

In the end,

  1. pointing out that END Adjustments are a possible problem area... good to know.
  2. Also... the concern with Autofire.
  3. The odd "one off" power that breaks the END/AP limit. (Generally a case by case "play group allows or disallows it" situation, to be honest.)
  4. The fact that allowing up to 1/2 AP Pushes may be "too much"
  5. 0 Stun is even more punishing that before... maybe too much.

 

Does that sum up the biggest concerns?

 

I will also say, part of the mentality behind this came from the "players always use powers at their max values. They don't hold back" and the past threads and concerns about that. I always wanted players to realize that whatever was paid for on the sheet was "standard level of attack" and not actually "maxing out." Maxing out happens when you push... so every 60 END/AP character is actually" holding back when only doing 12d6. The are "I'm not holding back anymore!" when they do 18d6... and that leaves them spent.

 

If you have any suggestions on a more elegant "cost" to pushing... that could work, too. The idea that any push, hands down, must do a Recovery the next action, no choice. That is even more simple, clearly makes the character vulnerable at a 0 DCV and if they get hit, spoils that recovery. It lets higher SPD characters with more actions do more pushing... not really what I want.

 

What about... Pushing simply puts you down on END... which does nothing to affect other powers, DC levels, etc. You simply can't Push Again, until you've recovered back up to full END?   This is pretty elegant. Keeps pushing from happening all the time... but likely would incentivize the "First attack... everyone pushes... and if that doesn't end the fight right away, then we fight at normal strenghth."  Probably not the outcome we want, but is there something we can work with here?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this idea and am also of the opinion that there is something here to manage fatigue in superheroic games in a very different way.

 

I think I have read everything any seen any difference between constant and instant powers.  There is little difference between traditional armour and force field in this system.  This ties a bit into the issue with density increase.  Might there something about running a constant power that would decrease the AP cap for other powers?  I was trying to think of something that might be used to dictate how many different powers might be active at the same time.  I have considered REC, BODY, REC/3, CON/5 and I am thinking that possibly END/10 might be best, it would be an additional disincentive to push too often.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Sometimes the big bads are tough enough that pushing is the only thing that will get significant damage through.  And for the most part, Damage Reduction is key. Little bits get through, but big, overwhelming swing shots are muted.

 

I definitely agree with Damage Reduction and/or lot of STUN so the PCs still have an impact.  However, Reduction also mutes the results of those dramatic Pushed attacks, doesn't it?

3 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

Back when we used the SPD chart, I don't remember fights going on more than two turns at most, so -19 (or anything below -10) was likely "out for the fight" anyway, at least in my experience. As for being KO'd as a PC, it happens, but rarely. It isn't a common event that every fight, you go below 0 Stun and come back as a regular thing during a fight. It is a big deal if you've been hit enough to go to zero. I can only be anecdotal about this, but it hasn't been punishing.

Also... our combats tend to move in and out of combat time a lot. A few rounds (say a turn on the SPD chart in your world), then the enemy breaks, or the first wave is down and the PCs move forward, we "go non-combat" and essentially everyone recovers up as we role play out the moments in between fights. Tend to avoid one long slog of a combat. That may very well be a style thing, but we've done it so long that it just happens. Part of my GMing... realizing the fight is no longer "fun" for the players, in that we are just grinding mechanics, so provide a narrative break... reflecting more the ebb and flow of combat (flurry of activity... then periods of inaction... another flurry... etc.). If it happens to be the culminating battle, then yeah, if you get below zero, you might be significantly out of that particular fight.

 

Definitely a YMMV thing.  We ran for a long time with, IMO, too high a Defense to DC ratio, to the point that I toyed with dropping the Bad Guys' defenses by 10 and upping their DCs by 3 (average 10.5 rolled) to get every attack to pass an extra 10 STUN through defenses.  Then along came character guidelines that suggested a lower ratio.

 

3 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

This is the exact "thought process" I tend to avoid at a Social Contract level. If a player's idea of a "character" is reading the rules and finding the most broken combination of abilities, then they aren't playing in my game in the first place. That is D&D thinking... where the game is designed to reward the players who know all the details and pick the right character with the right feats, in the right combination, etc.

 

Why do you assume that any player who happens to hit on a particularly effective ability must have perceived it as an ability to game the system?  My "Superhero who manipulates biological energy" character would logically be able to inflict fatigue.  Is that concept inherently munchkinny?  A magical spell in a fantasy game that either bestows or dispels fatigue also seems perfectly reasonable.  So much for "I can play any concept I can imagine".  To me, rule changes that lock out concepts are poor rule changes.

 

3 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Because campaign limits aren't the issue. Particular character "level" or limits are. This is a big gaming world, and 50 END/AP crime fighter martial artist can exist in world with 80 END/AP national super-hero and 100 END/AP world beater... and they might meet or team-up. Daredevil and Thor and not built on the same END/AP limits. Not everyone in the team is the same END/AP level (though they are close in current incarnation). And I just like using a stat already on the page that was getting no use in our game. Also, that "tax" on playing a character who is higher END/AP was part of the thing. (I agree that possibly END needs to cost more.)

 

Will the typical character group have "same or similar" levels of max AP, or can they vary markedly?  If they will vary markedly within the regular campaign, then they need the ability to have higher or lower AP max purchases, and the costing definitely needs to be worked out.  Mutants and Masterminds sets its caps based on character level, and I doubt many gaming groups have characters of Levels 10 - 18 in a team, rather than running close together.  Most players don't want to be the 10 DC, 18 Defense character in a game where everyone else has 15 DC and 35 Defenses, with villains constructed to compete with them.

 

If the PCs are generally comparable, then give everyone in each game a set END/AP limit, and NPCs vary from that norm as required.  And if the 50 AP guys and 100 AP guys work together in a crossover, great - the 50 AP guys have different limits.  This is no different than having a teamup of "street Supers" with a 10 DC/18 defense norm and the High Power Supers with 15 DC and 35 defenses.  If they work together all of the time, the challenge becomes letting those lower power characters do something other than kick the Kryptonite away and spray paint the yellow robots purple so the world beater can once again save the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, I think you have tagged most of the key concerns raised.  It's tough to evaluate one change without constants surrounding it, and your house rules seem to have a lot of variations from the Hero Norm.  That makes it tough for the rest of us to evaluate impact in your game versus impact in a typical Hero game, and even those have lots of variation!

 

The Haymaker one still bugs me.  There is no reason for anyone to ever use a Haymaker.  But they don't see a lot of use in my games anyway, so maybe that is not such a big deal.  I can't think of any other maneuver where this would bug me, as most are designed to be viable choices much or most of the time in combat.  Maybe the guy whose biggest attack does 2d6 more than his lower power attack, but also costs him lower OCV and DCV, gets special dispensation to have 1 DC greater END than the norm for the game, so he normally does 1d6 less than standard, but can get 1d6 more when suffering relevant drawbacks,

 

Example:  if the norm in my game is that a typical attacker hits a typical defender on a 14-, but your game  is more defense-focused, and attacks tend to only hit on an 8-, the risk of Pushing in your game (when the attacker will miss 75% of the time) is much higher than in mine (where he will hit over 90% of the time).

 

I agree with Doc D that this removes a lot of issues about having multiple END-using powers.  At the same time, if you have to track the END used each phase, the major goal of reducing/removing END bookkeeping is not achieved as well.

 

hmmm...maybe a power could have a Side Effect that it uses some portion of the AP cap END.  So if I have 75 END, I can use 15 DCs, but if I also want to fly, every 10 meters Flight costs me 5 of those END, so I drop down 1 DC.  The default would be that those additional powers do not require so much effort that they detract from my ability to use full DCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Will the typical character group have "same or similar" levels of max AP, or can they vary markedly?  If they will vary markedly within the regular campaign, then they need the ability to have higher or lower AP max purchases, and the costing definitely needs to be worked out.  Mutants and Masterminds sets its caps based on character level, and I doubt many gaming groups have characters of Levels 10 - 18 in a team, rather than running close together.  Most players don't want to be the 10 DC, 18 Defense character in a game where everyone else has 15 DC and 35 Defenses, with villains constructed to compete with them.

 

If the PCs are generally comparable, then give everyone in each game a set END/AP limit, and NPCs vary from that norm as required.  And if the 50 AP guys and 100 AP guys work together in a crossover, great - the 50 AP guys have different limits.  This is no different than having a teamup of "street Supers" with a 10 DC/18 defense norm and the High Power Supers with 15 DC and 35 defenses.  If they work together all of the time, the challenge becomes letting those lower power characters do something other than kick the Kryptonite away and spray paint the yellow robots purple so the world beater can once again save the day.

 

The typical group of "we intend these PCs to work together regularly" will generally be the same. The mismatched team-ups are rare. I feel it is as much a player psychology tool as anything in some cases. When players have multiple, sometimes dozens of PCs over the years in different sub-campaigns, it is useful to have those sub-groups have a common level and you can compare characters across those levels. Our "Malta Mercs" campaign was 50-55 END/AP, and essentially cybernetic super soldier/mercs/martial artists doing dirty deeds. The Vanguard eventually reached 600 plus points, 80+ END/AP and taking on world beaters and forging nations and colonizing the solar system by sheer power. I could throw a single 60 END/AP supervillain at the Malta Mercs and have a great fight, that the Vanguard would just take out with the wave of a hand. We, as a play group, actually liked this. There was no thinking that "every PC is equal" just because they are a PC.


The END/AP limit is also not one you casually "increase" as part of spending EXP. Changing that is saying "I'm changing the fundamental nature of this character." Sometimes that makes sense... characters whose power development could go from "well trained agent with nascent TK abilities" and eventually become "Vector of the Vanguard, Psionic Master" with incremental character growth over time. Whereas Vigilante Ninja guy is not really going to ever be more than vigilante ninja guy, no matter how much EXP is earned... without a "radiation accident" or something that transforms the character concept. Both are viable characters, and the END/AP level is just a concrete reminder of character concept, that is only breached with appropriate story/character growth.

 

Again... how it has played out, over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...