Reduced Endurance

[Tech]

When 1st edition Champions came out, getting Reduced Endurance was almost a necessity because END cost was 1 pt/5 pts. Later, the END cost became 1 per 10 points. So your 50pt attack went from 10 END to 5 END cost, which was a big thing. Still, 5 END with a 6 SPD is still 30 END being used per turn. Even with this, reduced END was still being bought for powers, just not as much because it wasn't needed as much. More recently in our campaign, I've noticed a huge shift in how the players are handling END cost: characters for the most part are paying the full END cost and usually buying Reduced End only for movement powers. I find this interesting.

 

So, I'm curious...

 

Do you buy Reduced Endurance for your characters powers? Why and why not?

[BoloOfEarth]

As a GM, I don't track the NPCs' END use during combats -- just too much to do.  So what I do instead is either:

• Many characters either have Reduced END on often-used Powers, or a high enough END (or a large Endurance Reserve) that they can survive at least a Turn or more of combat
• Some characters have most Powers on Charges (mainly focus-based characters)
• Some characters have an alternate way to boost or recover END -- Healing, Aid, etc.  This might be on a self-only basis, but in some cases a team might have a "healer" sort who could restore teammates' spent END.

I have one villain group (the New Gods) who are all effectively androids, and they each put a handful of points aside to collectively buy agents and vehicles (which the agents typically drive).  Some of these vehicles can broadcast power (wireless transmission of electricity), which had the game effect of:

 

Healing 2d6 END and STUN (15 END & 6 STUN, maximum 30 END and 12 STUN per Turn), Expanded Effect (+½), Area of Effect (500m Radius; +2), Indirect (+½), 0 END (+½), Invisible Power Effects (Invisible to Sight and Hearing; +1), Decreased Re-Use Duration (1 Turn; + 1½); IIF Bulky (-¾), Only works vs. electrically- or magnetically-powered beings or equipment (-½)

 

I figured this sufficed to not have to worry much about END costs.  Of course, when the heroes learned of this (because one of them was magnetically powered and thus benefited from the broadcast power), the first thing they would do when the New Gods were involved was to locate and trash the broadcast power trucks.  When that happened, I'd just wing it END-wise -- sometimes I might have a New God or two (particularly those with higher END costs or high SPD) either stop and take a Recovery or burn STUN because I figured they were probably out of END at that point.

[massey]

Costs END Only to Activate (+1/4) is a big hit with our group.  Movement powers, force fields, things like that are often purchased with this advantage.

[Tech]

2 hours ago, massey said:

Costs END Only to Activate (+1/4) is a big hit with our group.  Movement powers, force fields, things like that are often purchased with this advantage.

 

Y'know something...  I'd forgotten about this.

 

In general, we keep track of END for those times when a hero is almost out of Stun & runs out of Endurance and wants to make that last ditch effort to stop a villain. Taking 1d6 NND for each 2 pts of END used can KO the hero. We've had that happen and each time, it's been glorious.

[archer]

When a player, I count up how quickly my character would be using up END then build my powers so that I can be functional and effective. That usually means if I'm a blaster or brick that I have an attack which doesn't use END (usually in a multipower), at least some defense which doesn't use END, and movement which uses little to no END.

 

A brick might have a multipower slot in his brick tricks with +40 STR at 0 END (and not be able to add that to his other STR to take it above campaign damage maximums if that's a problem with the GM) and have most of his defense as Armor whether natural or through a costume.

 

A blaster might have a 0 END energy blast slot and a Force Field which only requires END to activate.

 

I'm also a fan of having a utility belt so if I'm short on END, I've usually got a smoke bomb or some thematically appropriate action available which doesn't cost END.

 

If I'm a GM, I'm really only picky about players tracking their END if their characters are built so that they always run out of END quickly or if they're prone to pushing during combat or doing other things which are abusive. If they've made an effort to build an END efficient character and use their END efficient powers rather than their other powers often enough that I notice their effort to be END efficient, that's good enough for me. But I'll admit that part of that accommodation on my part is because I can't keep track of a blizzard of information during combats like I could when I was younger.

 

I also tend to play in a modified 4th or 5th edition campaigns where most people spend enough points on CON to get adequate END and REC levels so players inadvertently ignoring END concerns while building a character isn't as easy as it is in 6th.

 

Anyway, I'm a fan of having a mix of 0 END attack powers with full END cost attack powers then switch back and forth between them to accommodate END availability rather than buying one attack power at half END cost. In my opinion, one attack power bought at half END cost is just gimping my character's damage output 100% of the time at the beginning of combat and might keep me from putting down a threat quickly.

[Mr. R]

In the last game I was in, movement and defense were usually brought down to 0 End.  Attack powers would have a 0 End, a 1/2 End and a full End component.  So Like a MP:

 

MP 62 Pts

8d6 EB at 0 End

10d6 EB at 1/2 End (2)

12d6 EB  (6)

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Prior to 6e, reduced END on at least some abilities was pretty common to avoid frequent exhaustion.  With the price of END and REC reduced in 6e, it's more practical to buy these up and keep powers at full END.

[dmjalund]

6 hours ago, Mr. R said:

MP 62 Pts

8d6 EB at 0 End

10d6 EB at 1/2 End (2)

12d6 EB  (6)

this is the same as 8D6 No END + 2D6 at x2 END cost and +2d6 at x4 END cost

[Tech]

Since archer brought it up, and it relates to END usage...

 

He said, " If I'm a GM, I'm really only picky about players tracking their END if their characters are built so that they always run out of END quickly or if they're prone to pushing during combat or doing other things which are abusive."

 

A player cannot push his attack unless it's a life-threatening, earth-shaking, etc etc necessity. It's not a player option to use whenever he/she feels like they want to use it. In earlier versions, it was also stated a character cannot push unless the GM agrees you can push an attack.

[Surrealone]

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Prior to 6e, reduced END on at least some abilities was pretty common to avoid frequent exhaustion.  With the price of END and REC reduced in 6e, it's more practical to buy these up and keep powers at full END.

This.

[BoloOfEarth]

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Prior to 6e, reduced END on at least some abilities was pretty common to avoid frequent exhaustion.  With the price of END and REC reduced in 6e, it's more practical to buy these up and keep powers at full END.

 

With one (admittedly less-frequent) exception:  immediately after a character recovers from unconsciousness.  Getting KO'd will bring his END down to 0, and then upon awakening it's up to his REC.  Unless he bought his REC up to some insane level, that END may not last him more than a Phase or two if his powers are all at full END.  At times like that, a reduced-END power may be just what that character needs.

[Scott Ruggels]

2 hours ago, Tech said:

Since archer brought it up, and it relates to END usage...

 

He said, " If I'm a GM, I'm really only picky about players tracking their END if their characters are built so that they always run out of END quickly or if they're prone to pushing during combat or doing other things which are abusive."

 

A player cannot push his attack unless it's a life-threatening, earth-shaking, etc etc necessity. It's not a player option to use whenever he/she feels like they want to use it. In earlier versions, it was also stated a character cannot push unless the GM agrees you can push an attack.

 

Our rule was you can push if you made an EGO roll. That was dangerous, because our play style was almost never Boss Battles, so there was almost always an opponent around to take cheap shots. Recoveries were done behind cover and fell into the team tactics. We were almost always about good, fluid team works. And were pleased when we could use rehearsed set ups and maneuver upon our opponents. Myself I tended to buy things to 0 end, because I am bad at math and hate accounting. 

[BoloOfEarth]

We use the criteria from "Pushing in Heroic Campaigns" even though it's a superhero campaign:  EGO Roll required - if made, the character can push 5 points +1 for each point the roll is made.

 

And even though the rules say it has to be life-threatening / earth-shaking / etc. circumstances, I'm pretty lax on that.  Characters can push to break out of entangles pretty much any time, for example.  I don't typically have the villains push (except in rare instances, maybe once every third combat), but I'd say at least one or two of the player characters will try pushing once every combat.

[dsatow]

Most of my players use full end all the time.  They only become concerned when a combat lasts more than two turns.  A lot of my villains have a lower end mode attack for battles lasting longer than 2 turns or in turns where they push.  I usually design villains to have enough end and recovery to last 2 turns minimum.  Most will run if they reach this point and are losing.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

With the extremely low cost of recovery and endurance now, there's not much point I agree.  That's a problem with 6th; the cost for key elements became so trivial that it overpowered adjustment abilities and made parts of the game irrelevant.

[Duke Bushido]

Agreed.

 

In the focus to make certain that all things were perfectly equal to all other things, there is not much "advantage" left to certain advantages: if END and REC are priced right, then, being essentially "equal" to zero END, there is no point to buy the "Advantage," as it has no actual "advantage" to it.

 

Not in all cases, mind you-- but still: the more you push for perfect equality amongst all parts, the more sameness you build in.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

I use END in my campaign. While characters rarely run out on their own....circumstances may cause that to happen. I also love Increased END Cost as a limitation on powers characters don't use very often. If you only use your "Earth Shaker" attack once a fight, who will care if it costs 5x END?

[Jazzidemus]

In my games. I do not allow 0 end in the beginning. I tend to have my players work into 0 End. 

[bubba smith]

Quote

wouldn't a wheelchair user have this complcation

 

9 hours ago, Jazzidemus said:

In my games. I do not allow 0 end in the beginning. I tend to have my players work into 0 End. 

 

[IndianaJoe3]

On 10/31/2018 at 10:13 AM, Tech said:

Do you buy Reduced Endurance for your characters powers? Why and why not?

 

It's not so much, "buying Reduced END," as, "making sure you don't run out of END quickly." I'll figure out how much END a character uses, and how long they can last in a fight without taking a recovery. If it's under a couple of turns I'll take steps to either reduced END costs or buy more END (or a higher REC), depending on character concept and how short on END they are.

[Lord Liaden]

On 11/1/2018 at 9:17 AM, Tech said:

A player cannot push his attack unless it's a life-threatening, earth-shaking, etc etc necessity. It's not a player option to use whenever he/she feels like they want to use it. In earlier versions, it was also stated a character cannot push unless the GM agrees you can push an attack.

 

Well, the rules wording since 5E has been, "for crucial, heroic, or life-saving actions." That's subject to interpretation, but I've never seen it as necessarily equating to "earth-shaking." Examples from 5E include, "an enemy has to be Knocked Out now, regular attacks aren't getting the job done..."

[Jazzidemus]

On 11/3/2018 at 7:59 AM, bubba smith said:

 

 

Reduced End sure. 0 End? Prolly not. Do you have 0 End on your Movement?

[IndianaJoe3]

On 11/1/2018 at 9:17 AM, Tech said:

A player cannot push his attack unless it's a life-threatening, earth-shaking, etc etc necessity. It's not a player option to use whenever he/she feels like they want to use it. In earlier versions, it was also stated a character cannot push unless the GM agrees you can push an attack.

 

The last supers game I ran, I ruled that Pushing cost Long-Term Endurance. The players really thought hard about pushing, and, when they did push, it felt appropriately heroic.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 11/1/2018 at 8:55 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

With the extremely low cost of recovery and endurance now, there's not much point I agree.  That's a problem with 6th; the cost for key elements became so trivial that it overpowered adjustment abilities and made parts of the game irrelevant.

 

Looking at this from pre-6e, no one bought END, REC or STUN.  They may have  bought STR and CON to pump them up with those discounted figured characteristics, but REC, STUN and END were overpriced if purchased directly.  I also did not see a lot of 40+ CON characters suggesting that the indirect cost of buying those stats was excessively discounted.  Buy more END and REC?  No, I will buy Reduced END instead - it is more cost effective.  Buy up STUN?  No, defenses are much less expensive for the same benefits.

 

The 6e change reduces their cost to a level more commensurate with their value.  Their reclassification as "defensive abilities" deals with adjustment powers reasonably well, and an END Drain was remarkably potent in 5e as well.

[Tech]

So, my 6th ed question then regarding END is:  if a 4d6 Drain vs END hits a hero, and you roll 20 pts, how much END is drained? 100 pts?