Replacement for END costs in a END free game

[Tywyll]

I'm running FH and I did away with END tracking to help my players learn the system better and play faster (since our sessions are usually only around 3-3.5 hours). Casters have to buy END Reserves, but noncasters don't track END unless there is something extreme (they had to swim underwater for 200'). 

 

This makes the game faster and such, but does remove some interesting build concepts for non-casters. 

 

I was thinking last night and it occurred to me that maybe in place of END, a non-caster could still buy abilities that 'cost END' but instead of END they cost Stun. This way they can 'exert' themselves, and have abilities that require balancing resources, but without needing to track everything else. 

 

Good idea? Bad idea? I don't expect it would come up much, but I'd like to have the option and this seems like a decent way to handle it?

[Doc Democracy]

I find it interesting that you banish END tracking for faster play and then introduce greater complexity for spell-casters.  I understand the drivers but they do run counter to each other.

 

As such I think that the use of STUN as an END proxy has some value (using a metric you are already tracking rather than adding in a new one) and avoids putting a character tax on wizardry (wizards would need to buy the bureaucracy system you are imposing on them with points that other players are using to be more game effective). 

 

Doc

[Tech]

I rather agree with Doc. Yes, there is one less stat but by using Stun in replacing End, you are still effectively using End. I'll say I find the idea a bit interesting so I suggest giving it a try and see what happens but let the players know it is a test. Maybe they'll like the idea, maybe not. Get their feedback and see what happens.

[Tywyll]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I find it interesting that you banish END tracking for faster play and then introduce greater complexity for spell-casters.  I understand the drivers but they do run counter to each other.

 

As such I think that the use of STUN as an END proxy has some value (using a metric you are already tracking rather than adding in a new one) and avoids putting a character tax on wizardry (wizards would need to buy the bureaucracy system you are imposing on them with points that other players are using to be more game effective). 

 

Doc

 

Most systems I've played require casters to perform some sort of resource management, so I don't really see anything odd about limiting the resource management to a single character concept. It takes the burden of tracking END for movement and swings from everyone and reduces it to only being tracked in phases when a spell is actually cast...that's a huge reduction in time and energy for everyone (there is only one caster in my group). So I don't see it as running counter to my goals at all.

 

Casters needing to 'buy in' on their powers also doesn't bother me. Spells tend to be more flexible than 'normal' concepts, so its a small gateway price to justify buying the ability to fly, turn invisible, and instantly heal a companion AFAIAC. To be clear, the Stun in place of END would only be for those super-skill type abilities like '+2 DCV, Costs END' that currently already exist. It would just allow me to add them back in the game without fiddling with END. 

[Doc Democracy]

But the buy in is not simply buying the powers that are available but buying the bureaucracy that goes along with that. 

 

If you are going to make casters do the whole resource management thing then why not simply reintroduce END for casters rather than the whole END Battery thing?  If you are a caster, unlike other concepts, you are prone to exhausting yourself and need to manage that aspect.  As such you put END back on their character sheet (though you might use a different term such as Mana or Power or something).  That costs nothing and is a default 20.  Casters can buy that up, they recover on PS12 and if they go over their available END then they take STUN.  Is that not simpler (which I presume is still a priority) than making them buy a whole END Battery with a separate REC??

Doc

[Tywyll]

I don't like the 'super mage' concept, which pure END casting creates. Wizard's blast away freely or heal or fly without much need to concern themselves under the default model. With an END reserve I've got them only getting REC back every 5 minutes, meaning in a dungeon or something, the choice to rest and replenish reserves carries the very real potential consequence of wandering encounters or other negative effects. You don't get that with the default END model.

 

And again, I don't see it as 'bureaucracy' in the sense that there is little different from requiring a Talent as a gatekeeper for using magic, but get nothing for it other than the ability to then actually buy spells (a number of magic systems I've seen for FH use this model). This accomplishes the same task, but gives the player something concrete they can use on top of the spent points.

 

In addition, it allows for the rare concept of someone who has magic potential (i.e. a small END reserve) that they could use either to power buff spells cast on them, or power items that normally require 'mana', without dipping into the Stun...which again, the default model cannot accomplish. This could be a neat concept for someone who had potential but never received proper training (yet). 

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

And again, I don't see it as 'bureaucracy' in the sense that there is little different from requiring a Talent as a gatekeeper for using magic, but get nothing for it other than the ability to then actually buy spells (a number of magic systems I've seen for FH use this model).

 

You do not see this as bureaucracy but have abolished general END tracking due to the added book-keeping burden and complexity?

 

I would be more accepting if you gave each spellcaster a base END Battery, which players might choose to invest in.  I am opposed to the buy a magic talent as well that is purely a concept tax...

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

I'm in complete agreement with Doc here. 

First you make the mages pay points for the basics like DCs that everyone else gets for free.  Then you make the mages pay END for the DCs that everyone else doesn't.  Then you make the mages pay for the END that you're making them pay for the DCs that everyone else doesn't.  You're taxing the concept thrice. 

 

You've given the reasons that

A: Other systems do it.  But you're not playing other systems, you're playing HERO. 

B: You don't like mages throwing around spells non-stop.  But there's other options for this that don't require double-standards, like the Charges Limitation. 

[Duke Bushido]

Odd man out here (again) :

 

I don't have any issue with it at all.  I think I understand the feel you're going for, and I suspect you'd be catching less flack if hadn't justified not tracking END as "reducing bookeeping" but had instead said "I doan wanna." 

 

I assume casters aren't tracking personal END any more than anyone else?  If that's true, it seems reasonable to me.  I have never had a solid appreciation of the "all character types must work the same." I find "different concepts work differently" have a flavor-related appeal. 

 

That being said, I am of two minds on burning STUN:

 

It's a _great_ way to control the use of magic in your games,  but has two consequences.  First, it means that injured sorcerers become less and less effective, as they can lose a chunk of their pool before they even get to act simply by being hit.  They will remain less effective until they heal up a bit (though there may be a spell for that  :lol:). 

 

Second, the way it feels:   it feels more like super powers than magic, as the "oomph" seems to be coming not from the character's abilities or knowledge or skills, but from _him_:  it's like DragonBall charge UPS, feel wise.  Still if it works for you, the go for it. 

 

 

Someone (and it may have been you; I'm on a phone, and scrolling back up to check is.... Tedious...) said "endurance reserve.". This I like as a simulation of magic coming from _outside_ the sorcerer, and only being released or manipulated by him.  Don't like the idea of "END" to power magic?   Rename it.  Call it magic juice or mana or something; the mechanic is the important part here: an external source of power. 

 

Let sorcerers buy their pool to whatever they want / can afford / fits in the campaign.  Just like buying movement is the buy-in to be a speedster and buying martial maneuvers and related skills is the buy-in to be a martial artist (which no one ever decries), buying this pool is the buy-in to be a powerful wizard.  Not only am I cool with it, I do it a lot. 

 

_however_. (and I think Doc made or alluded to a similar idea), if you require magic guys to buy a magic skill, then remember this:

 

When Bruce Lee buys his martial maneuvers, he gets instant utility: CV bonuses, damage bonuses, etc.  When the Flash buys his running, he gets instant utility. 

 

Requiring the purchase of "magic skill" without comparable utility very much _is_ just a point suck (I believe the word "tax" was bandied about, and it's appropriate).  If you require both the skill and the pool to be purchased _before_ the character can use his abilities at all, he is being denied something. 

 

Consider this:

 

PRE-building an "every mage gets this" pool that can be increased in small ways by increasing the skill roll (perhaps a +1 adds 2 to Recovery, and +5 adds 10 to the pool itself).  Further, allow the character to spend points directly to increase to pool, but make sure he is getting some kind of utility for his defining buy-in; everyone does, and regardless of the concept, these little taxes can feel a bit heavy to the players themselves. 

 

Just a thought. 

 

Duke

[Greywind]

If you take something out, only later to replace it with something similar, you're better off just leaving in the original item you took out. I've never found END tracking to slow a game. A player tracks their END when someone else is active.

[Tywyll]

14 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

You do not see this as bureaucracy but have abolished general END tracking due to the added book-keeping burden and complexity?

 

I would be more accepting if you gave each spellcaster a base END Battery, which players might choose to invest in.  I am opposed to the buy a magic talent as well that is purely a concept tax...

 

Nope, considering it reduces the mechanical burden across the board for all players, I do not see it that way at all. No one has to track END. Mages have 'mana' (i.e. END Reserves) that they have to invest in if they want to use magic. They are choosing the complication to play the concept. 

 

To put it another way, no warrior concept HAS to buy MA, but to be really good in combat it behooves them to do so. No one has to be a caster, but if they want to be, they need to buy the thing that powers their magic (kinda like the minimum 10 point spend on MA, plus KS, etc). 

 

 

[Tywyll]

12 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I'm in complete agreement with Doc here. 

First you make the mages pay points for the basics like DCs that everyone else gets for free.  Then you make the mages pay END for the DCs that everyone else doesn't.  Then you make the mages pay for the END that you're making them pay for the DCs that everyone else doesn't.  You're taxing the concept thrice. 

 

You've given the reasons that

A: Other systems do it.  But you're not playing other systems, you're playing HERO. 

B: You don't like mages throwing around spells non-stop.  But there's other options for this that don't require double-standards, like the Charges Limitation. 

 

You're really focused on damage dealing. And if the mage in my group was a blasty caster, then you might have a point. Luckily, she isn't. She's a healer/buffer, meaning she can do stuff conceptually that no one else can do through ordinary concepts. I'm happy to stretch the concept of super skills and allow heroic endeavors for non-casters (hence burning Stun since they don't have another mechanic to deal with it), but no super skill is going to fly or turn desolid and walk through a wall.

 

I am playing HERO, and HERO has base assumptions that despite its claim, do not work for all genre's and settings. Unlimited spell casting is one of them in my opinion.

 

Charges is a terrible cludge to handle powers that are varied in use. Powers with duration need continuing charges, instant powers need regular charges, and there is no easy systemic way to apply those to a casting pool that I have seen. So no, that is an unworkable solution.

 

It's far eaiser to buy an END Reserve and limit its recovery to create the style of play I want. I mean, its almost like the power was built with these sorts of concepts in mind! 

[Tywyll]

10 hours ago, Greywind said:

If you take something out, only later to replace it with something similar, you're better off just leaving in the original item you took out. I've never found END tracking to slow a game. A player tracks their END when someone else is active.

 

Have to disagree. One player has to track one thing occasionally versus every player tracking something every phase they act in. That is vastly different in effort and brain space. HERO is already a hard sell to my players and I think demanding everyone tracking END would be a deal breaker, so no, I'm not going to do it. Also in FH, END tracking rarely ever limits characters...few combats last long enough for END to make a difference, so it's a vestigle remainder from super heroes that is unneccesary most of the time. 

[Tywyll]

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Odd man out here (again) :

 

I don't have any issue with it at all.  I think I understand the feel you're going for, and I suspect you'd be catching less flack if hadn't justified not tracking END as "reducing bookeeping" but had instead said "I doan wanna." 

 

Thanks Duke!

 

I don't want the players to have to perform a vestigle and mostly useless bean counting exercise (since END rarely gets exhausted in the 1 turn combats that FH tends to run). It makes sense with supers with 6 speed spending 6+ END a phase, it hardly makes sense when a character has a 3 spd and spends 2-4. 

 

That said, it does GREATLY reduce bookeeping, as only one player has to occasionally count beans (they don't count beans every phase) and the other 4 players get to just take their action and move on. 

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I assume casters aren't tracking personal END any more than anyone else?  If that's true, it seems reasonable to me.  I have never had a solid appreciation of the "all character types must work the same." I find "different concepts work differently" have a flavor-related appeal. 

 

Correct. Personal END only exists to pay attention to long term exercise. We've used it once to see if people could swim underwater while encumbered a long distance and otherwise it just sat on the character sheet. Characters started in 5th ed with their free END and didn't spend any points on it. 

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

That being said, I am of two minds on burning STUN:

 

It's a _great_ way to control the use of magic in your games,  but has two consequences.  First, it means that injured sorcerers become less and less effective, as they can lose a chunk of their pool before they even get to act simply by being hit.  They will remain less effective until they heal up a bit (though there may be a spell for that  :lol:). 

 

 

I don't know if I wasn't clear enough, but this seems to keep coming up. Burning Stun in place of END would ONLY come up for Super-Skills or using magic items that would normally burn a caster's END from their END Reserve. Spells all must come from the END Reserve. A caster cannot spend STUN in place of END Reserve END. The two concepts would not both be active usually on the same character.

 

Joe the fighter might have 'Flurry of Steel' +2 OCV, Costs END -1/2, x2 END Cost -1/2, and to activate it he spends 2 Stun every Phase. The caster would have Fly Spell, 3 END and spend out of their END reserve which recovers more slowly then either Stun or normal END. When the caster's END reserve is empty, he stops flying. 

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Second, the way it feels:   it feels more like super powers than magic, as the "oomph" seems to be coming not from the character's abilities or knowledge or skills, but from _him_:  it's like DragonBall charge UPS, feel wise.  Still if it works for you, the go for it. 

 

Someone (and it may have been you; I'm on a phone, and scrolling back up to check is.... Tedious...) said "endurance reserve.". This I like as a simulation of magic coming from _outside_ the sorcerer, and only being released or manipulated by him.  Don't like the idea of "END" to power magic?   Rename it.  Call it magic juice or mana or something; the mechanic is the important part here: an external source of power. 

 

Let sorcerers buy their pool to whatever they want / can afford / fits in the campaign.  Just like buying movement is the buy-in to be a speedster and buying martial maneuvers and related skills is the buy-in to be a martial artist (which no one ever decries), buying this pool is the buy-in to be a powerful wizard.  Not only am I cool with it, I do it a lot. 

 

 

Exactly my feeling. Every concept has 'buy in'. And as I said, some example magic systems recommend Talents you have to purchase to use magic that don't actually do anything. This actually does something (gives you your juice) and fits alongside the idea of needing to spend points on the thing you want.

 

You can't play a Brick in supers without spending points on Strength or Growth...why is this so different? 🤔

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

_however_. (and I think Doc made or alluded to a similar idea), if you require magic guys to buy a magic skill, then remember this:

 

When Bruce Lee buys his martial maneuvers, he gets instant utility: CV bonuses, damage bonuses, etc.  When the Flash buys his running, he gets instant utility. 

 

Requiring the purchase of "magic skill" without comparable utility very much _is_ just a point suck (I believe the word "tax" was bandied about, and it's appropriate).  If you require both the skill and the pool to be purchased _before_ the character can use his abilities at all, he is being denied something.

 

 

I see where you are coming from, but I don't entirely agree. Requires a Skill Roll is a limitation that reduces your overall cost on your spells. Maybe not a lot when you add all your other limitations, but it does add a discount to your price. So you are getting a discount in exchange for needing the skill roll. Since my magic system uses multiple MP's to represent suites of spells, getting that discount multiple times seems like a fair trade off.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Consider this:

 

PRE-building an "every mage gets this" pool that can be increased in small ways by increasing the skill roll (perhaps a +1 adds 2 to Recovery, and +5 adds 10 to the pool itself).  Further, allow the character to spend points directly to increase to pool, but make sure he is getting some kind of utility for his defining buy-in; everyone does, and regardless of the concept, these little taxes can feel a bit heavy to the players themselves. 

 

 

 

What do the other characters get for free for their concepts though? Everyone can use free equipment in my campaign, and I don't charge character points for magic items they find, so if one concept got a free bump how to I balance that with other concepts?

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

Just a thought. 

 

Duke

 

No problem. As always, I appreciate your input! 

[dsatow]

You could always use charges instead of end.  Each spell has a number of uses per day rather than an end cost.  If you are allowing multipowers for spells, then you can restrict the multipower to a number of uses per day (either overall or as an additional factor).

[Duke Bushido]

 

 

I have spent the day waiting to get home so I could respond to this.  I like what you're doing.  As I mentioned above, I've done it myself for certain games or short campaigns.   And of course, I have to really support the idea that tends to get overlooked when people start picking and choosing the rules:  The rules call themselves a toolkit.  Some of us die hards have even referred to the latest incarnation as being more akin to set of  rules for designing other games than being an actual game.    When you start doing things like this-- ripping out the bits you don't like, or altering them, etc-- I can't help but feel you are actually getting the best possible use out of something that bills itself as generic and flexible:  you are making it exactly what you want.  I will never find fault with that.

 

 

16 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Personal END only exists to pay attention to long term exercise. We've used it once to see if people could swim underwater while encumbered a long distance and otherwise it just sat on the character sheet. Characters started in 5th ed with their free END and didn't spend any points on it. 

 

 

I don't know if I wasn't clear enough, but this seems to keep coming up. Burning Stun in place of END would ONLY come up for Super-Skills or using magic items that would normally burn a caster's END from their END Reserve. Spells all must come from the END Reserve. A caster cannot spend STUN in place of END Reserve END. The two concepts would not both be active usually on the same character.

 

Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

16 hours ago, Tywyll said:

You can't play a Brick in supers without spending points on Strength or Growth...why is this so different? 🤔

 

You're singing to the choir, Sir.

 

To be fair, I could probably come up with an argument to support the other side, but they tend to feel either contrived or based entirely on some metagaming math; neither of which are particularly high-level important things to me: to paraphrase a dead guy:  "The _feel's_ the thing!"

 

16 hours ago, Tywyll said:

I see where you are coming from, but I don't entirely agree. Requires a Skill Roll is a limitation that reduces your overall cost on your spells. Maybe not a lot when you add all your other limitations, but it does add a discount to your price. So you are getting a discount in exchange for needing the skill roll. Since my magic system uses multiple MP's to represent suites of spells, getting that discount multiple times seems like a fair trade off.

 

Couple of things:  first, if you mentioned it, I totally missed that you were going with RSR as a default to your magic system.

 

Second, if you mentioned it, I totally missed that you were using MP's as part of your magic system.

 

Okay, a quick recheck suggests that you might not have mentioned either of those things.     However, with both of those in play, then I have no objection on the "tax" front:  you are getting utility for your buy-in:  If RSR is mandatory in your system, you are both buying access to magic _and_ reducing the price of it even further via the RSR limitation.  Upping Magic skill would make accessing magic easier and more likely, so again: utility.  No complaints.

 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Tywyll said:

What do the other characters get for free for their concepts though?

 

 

Nothing.  Just like your spell casters don't get anything for free.  Merlin's buy-in is the Magic Spell, giving him access to magic.  Increasing the skill makes him arguably "better" at magic as he would become more likely to succeed when he wished to use magic.

 

The strong characters are stronger.  They had to pay for that, though: that was their buy-in.

 

The fast characters get more movement or actions or both.  Like Merlin, they had to buy that.

 

Smart characters, martial artists, etc-- they don't get anything "for free," and that was not what I meant to say; I apologize for my apparent lack of clarity.  I was suggesting (before I knew RSR was part and parcel of your magic system) because spending points to buy "the traits" of other character concepts, these characters had instant utility for those points:  stronger characters can hit harder, carry more, etc, etc, etc.  Faster characters can exploit their increased actions or movement rates to advantage over characters who did not "buy in" to that particular concept.  As you pointed out, RSR is necessary for magic in your game: characters buying it have access to magic, _and_ that magic is less expensive because of it: theoretically, Merlin can recoup his points expenditure in savings on magical abilities.  I'm good with this.  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

You could always use charges instead of end.  Each spell has a number of uses per day rather than an end cost.  If you are allowing multipowers for spells, then you can restrict the multipower to a number of uses per day (either overall or as an additional factor).

 

 

This is another solid option for controlling magic in your games (if that is your goal).  You could even add additional limitations like having to memorize the spells every day and getting a night's rest and-- wait.  Scratch those last two.  They suck, and are amongst the reasons I don't play that other, really popular game.       Still, Charges something to think about.  Feel-wise, though, I like the END reserve (personally.  It's a "me" thing   )

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 1/17/2020 at 2:25 AM, Tywyll said:

 

Exactly my feeling. Every concept has 'buy in'. And as I said, some example magic systems recommend Talents you have to purchase to use magic that don't actually do anything. This actually does something (gives you your juice) and fits alongside the idea of needing to spend points on the thing you want.

 

You can't play a Brick in supers without spending points on Strength or Growth...why is this so different? 🤔

 

 

I think it is perceived as "different" because that Brick gets STR to do damage, the benefits of growth, etc. and he pays END for the use of those abilities, or pays extra to avoid paying END.

 

Your systems can be perceived as "Everybody can have 0 END on all of their powers and abilities for free.  We'll handle long-term exertion on a case-by-case, common and dramatic sense, basis.  Oh, everyone but spellcasters.  Spellcasters have to go back to using END, and they must do so using the END Reserve approach."

 

The comment  has been made that paying for magic skill is reasonable, because the spellcasters will also get a discount, however small, for RSR on all of their spells.  If no one else is required to spend END on their abilities (that is, we have made "0 END" a freebie), then perhaps the spellcasters should get the -1/2 limitation for "costs END" as a required limitation on their spells, or at least whichever spells cost END, rather than this being automatic.

 

Just like Joe the Fighter gets the -1/2 limitation for Costs END on his  'Flurry of Steel' +2 OCV, Costs END -1/2.  That could be implemented  just as easily by having Joe use END normally.  If you want a limitation for Costs END, then you opt back in to the END system.  You could also let the spellcasters choose between an END reserve (which I assume Joe could buy) and casting their spells with a STUN, instead of END, cost (i.e. using the same rule Joe uses).  Perhaps that is a more unusual brand of magic that uses the personal energy of the caster, rather than some pool from "outside" which is always what an END reserve feels like.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

  If no one else is required to spend END on their abilities (that is, we have made "0 END" a freebie), then perhaps the spellcasters should get the -1/2 limitation for "costs END" as a required limitation 

 

 

 

 

Excellent catch; thank you, Hugh! 

 

[Tywyll]

22 hours ago, dsatow said:

You could always use charges instead of end.  Each spell has a number of uses per day rather than an end cost.  If you are allowing multipowers for spells, then you can restrict the multipower to a number of uses per day (either overall or as an additional factor).

 

As I said earlier, this is a terrible kludge because it doesn't really work well with mixed instant and duration based powers. At least I've yet to see a model that worked satisfactorily to handle both with a single pool of charges. 

[Tywyll]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Just like Joe the Fighter gets the -1/2 limitation for Costs END on his  'Flurry of Steel' +2 OCV, Costs END -1/2.  That could be implemented  just as easily by having Joe use END normally.  If you want a limitation for Costs END, then you opt back in to the END system.  You could also let the choose between an END reserve (which I assume Joe could buy) and casting their spells with a STUN, instead of END, cost (i.e. the same rule Joe uses).  Perhaps that is a more unusual brand of magic that uses the personal energy of the caster, rather than some pool from "outside" which is always what an END reserve feels like.

 

 

 

Though these are some interesting ideas, they fail to address my concern with magic becoming too much like super powers, which the default system naturally lends itself to. While I like the idea of amage burning stun from some self-sacrifice, I don't want resources spent on casting to recover on a turn basis. I want the delay that END Reserve can create by having your rec ping every X time increments.

 

Now, side effect Drain Stun maybe? But that feels a bit convoluted. 

[Duke Bushido]

I don't think I'd change anything; I like what you have, and if it works for you and your players, our opinions don't matter anyway (though, to be fair to us, you _did_ ask for them, so please: keep that in mind when they are offered). 

 

If - and I say _"if"_ - I were to recommend a change--

 

And since I'm going to, I might as well rephrase that:

 

I would suggest specifically that you go out of your way to find a more thematically-appropriate name for your END pool.  Yes; I know: the mechanic you seem to be implementing is precisely the same as the END mechanic--and I have no quarrel with that; it's ideal for what you are trying to model.  So why would you change the name? 

 

Well look at this thread: a lot of seasoned HERO veterans-- knowledgeable, level-headed, even tempered guys (and also me       ) have replied here, and the only slightly-negative thoughts revolve around "why do away with END tracking and then force the wizard to do it?" 

 

Rename it.  Call it Essence.  Call it Mana.  Go way, way back to the dual-statted 4e Shadow World books and call it Flow.  Whatever you call it, make it clear that Wiz is _not_ tracking END, but is simply managing his magical resources in whatever manner the universe requires that to be done. 

 

A non-mage gets, as Hugh's attention to detail points out, Zero END for free on anything but magic items (if I understand correctly, it's the use of magical items by non-magicians that might burn Stun?  I'm not only cool with that, I sort of like it as a trade-off for not having to manage "resources" Ala END or "maximum number of sword swings." 

 

Archers have to manage their arrows (I assume; Lego Lass never seemed to run out,  UT it's possible he was managing them off-camera). 

 

Wizards can do way more than swing a stick or stab at distance.  Requiring some sort of bottleneck like managing their available magic juice seems both a reasonable control against dominating any situation and not too terribly large a burden, all things considered. 

 

As I said, these were suggestions from seasoned hands, from people that know the system and it's mechanics backwards and forwards; people who know every single thing I just said, when you get down to it.  But even they balked at the idea of "no one counts END except spellsligers.". Imagine how a lesser-experienced group- one familiar enough to know that END is usually a thing that must be tracked and appreciates the value of not having to track it- might react to the idea that "everyone gets free END except for the guy I want to play...." 

 

Yet I can't think of anyone terribly opposed to a maximum amount of magic any sorcerer can summon at one time, or using so much so quickly that he must wait to use more. 

 

So....   Change the name. 

 

Seriously. 

 

 

 

Duke 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

As I said earlier, this is a terrible kludge because it doesn't really work well with mixed instant and duration based powers. At least I've yet to see a model that worked satisfactorily to handle both with a single pool of charges. 

Assign the same Limitation value worth of Charges to each item, then normalize charges/use to the largest charge count.  Takes a few minutes during chargen and less time in play than END. 

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

I want the delay that END Reserve can create by having your rec ping every X time increments

I don't disagree with the ambition, I disagree with making a player pay points for something that limits the character.

 

Give the base pool for free and pay for enhancements?  Sounds good to me.  Want magic points to recover more slowly?  Then use the normal END system but have REC add to STUN every turn and to END every five minutes.  You get the same delay without the tax and without two separate REC values.

 

As Duke said, your game, your rules, everything else is just an opinion on the internet.

 

Doc

[dsatow]

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

As I said earlier, this is a terrible kludge because it doesn't really work well with mixed instant and duration based powers. At least I've yet to see a model that worked satisfactorily to handle both with a single pool of charges. 

 

When mixing charges in a multipower, the charges on the multipower determines the number of uses of the multipower while the charges on the slot determine the operation of the slot.  That sounds confusing so lets look at a simple example (if silly example).

 

40 Multipower (60) 8 charges(-1/2)

6f     12d6 EB, 16 charges (-0)

6f     TK 40 Str, 8 charges for 1 Turn (-0)

 

As you can see the 8 charge limitation only affects the multipower pool.  The limitation is not bought on any of the slots.  This means the pool can be used only 8 times.  Even if the EB  can be use 16 times, the pool itself can only be activated 8 times. 

 

So questions that might be asked:

Would anyone buy it this way?  Probably not.  Few people would buy a slot with more charges than the multipower itself.

Is it legal?  Yes. 

So why show it this way?  Only to explain how the multiple charges works.

Doesn't the TK die when the slot is changed?  No, this was asked a while back of Steve Long.  In effect, the power will continue to run until the charge expends.  The character will not be able to change what its doing, it simply continues doing what its doing.  So if the TK was grabbing someone when the slots switch, it will continue to grab that person until the turn ends.  It will not squeeze the character after the slot has been switched unless the character expends another charge.  The only thing the character might be able to do is switch off the power which will not restart unless they use another charge.

So how would this work in my magic scenario? It could make a character similar to how the rpg that shall not be mentioned ( )  runs sorcerers where there is a maximum number of uses per "spell level".  

Do you really think this is a better idea than my idea? No.  I  am like Duke Bushido.  I prefer an End Battery and/or Personal End for spells.  But it's a functional way to do things you or someone reading this post might want to try.  "More than one way to skin a cat" phrase so to speak. 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

23 hours ago, Tywyll said:

 

Though these are some interesting ideas, they fail to address my concern with magic becoming too much like super powers, which the default system naturally lends itself to. While I like the idea of a mage burning stun from some self-sacrifice, I don't want resources spent on casting to recover on a turn basis. I want the delay that END Reserve can create by having your rec ping every X time increments.

 

I assume you are making the players limit the REC on the reserve, as the default is a one/turn recovery. EDIT:  Now posted - per 5 minutes or slower.

 

My only concern would be on the impact it actually has on the game.  Do spellcasters carefully husband their resources (and maybe get pretty bored watching the non-spellcasters handle whatever can be done without magic, since I don't want to have no resources when we really need them)?  Do we get the 15-minute work day (Caster goes nova every combat, then we set up camp and wait for them to recover their Mana Pool)?  Assuming it is working well in your game, I would not mess with that.

 

Per five minutes means I can buy 9 REC (6 AP) per 5 minutes (-3/4, the spread between "per turn" and "per 5 minutes") for 5 points, so pretty rapid recovery is practical.  Seems like this would be more limiting to a single encounter than a day.

 

21 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I don't disagree with the ambition, I disagree with making a player pay points for something that limits the character.

 

Give the base pool for free and pay for enhancements?  Sounds good to me.  Want magic points to recover more slowly?  Then use the normal END system but have REC add to STUN every turn and to END every five minutes.  You get the same delay without the tax and without two separate REC values.

 

Or just require the END reserve, and all spells must take Costs END, which draws from the END reserve.  Much like Magic Skill, the more magic you purchase, the more points you will save due to that limitation.  If the spell would not normally cost END, give that spell a -1 limitation since nothing in your game costs END by default.  That should also apply to "burn STUN instead" builds like +2 OCV since that also would not have cost END, even in a normal "costs END" game.  We could quibble over whether it really "costs END" or has a side effect inflicting a bit of STUN damage, but it comes to the same thing - the character takes a bit of STUN damage when they use this ability.