RDU Neil

Hope is not a plan, but hope is the beginning of a plan.

Oh... keep using this thread. I've got what I wanted in terms of a list of problematic areas I need to be able to address. It has helped me shape my END/AP/DC cap a little more. END and Adjustment Powers - I'm just going with my original concept that END is a meta-stat, buy your AP/DC level, no more/extra for any reason. Can't be affected by Adjustment Powers. (I ran this past my players and they were like, "Makes sense. Bio-energy Draining Lad would just drain other stats (CON, STR, Stun)." Autofire - Will only allow +1/2 Advantage cost or more The odd "one off" power that breaks the END/AP limit. - Already handled in a case by case "play group allows or disallows it" situation. (Hasn't come up, yet.) Allowing up to 1/2 AP Pushes may be "too much". - (Going to try the following...) Two choices to push, Pushed (+10 AP) or Mega-Push (x 1.5 AP.) Both require a full action (no half move push attack) and Mega-Push is like Haymaker, it goes off at the end of the attack round (end of segment) and you are at 1/2 DCV. Dropping to 0 Stun may be too punishing, keeping a PC dropped early out of the fight. - Going to let this play out. So far has actually been dramatically effective. I will play test allowing a new bonus with my Chit Rules, where spending a high power chit will let you recover your END up to full (not Stun). This would allow that "stagger back to your feet to keep fighting, but one more hit and you are out (END is full, but Stun is barely above zero.) Reminds me that there is a hard rule in the draft of Ron Edwards' Champions Now about dropping to zero Stun (and END) and getting back up. You can do it once per fight, but if you go down again, you are at GM's option, la la land. (There are no negatives in his version. Zero is zero.) I really like that rule, and will probably adopt it.

Correct. You guys have fun! I'll read along to see what comes out of it, for sure, but I'm not really interested in re-writing everything.

4th Edition with non-figured characteristics from 6th. I then mod from there with significant house rules (no Speed Chart, Luck Chits, END/AP caps) etc. Edit: And I started with first edition. I played all the way through every edition. I loved 3rd Ed as the culmination of what the early takes were like, but 4th Ed brought consistency and cleaner rulings through out.

Here are my Luck Chit rules... will seem like a lot of text, but in play, it is quick and dramatic... toss a chit for a certain effect. -- Luck & Luck Chits Luck cost 5 pts per level. (Price doubles for each 3 levels bought (so fourth level of Luck costs 10 points) For each level of Luck purchased, players gain: 1d6 of Luck to add to a Luck Roll that can only have positive results. They randomly draw +1 Luck Chit at the beginning of the game from “the bag.” ------ Luck Chit Rules Each PC draws one Luck Chit from “the bag” +1 Chit for every level of Luck at the beginning of the game. “The bag” contains 72 Chits in the following assortment: 30 White Chits, 20 Black Chits, 20 Blue Chits, 1 Red Chit, 1 Gold Chit. A player may decide to “throw a chit” at any point during play where they think it will benefit them, the group or the story to do so. The chits provide the following benefits in play. White Chits: Lowest rank. Using a white chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player: Re-roll one roll you control Take an Abort Action at any time without cost of a regular Action. Take a Recovery at any time without cost of a regular Action or any defensive penalties. Defensively move a Hit Location result one level up or down on the HL chart. (Only used in Heroic games where Hit Location is used.) Black Chits: Middle rank. Using a black chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player: * Any one of the benefits as listed under White Chits. (see above) Any one benefit as listed under Blue Chits. (see below) BUT...Throwing a black chit allows the GM to draw a chit to add to his/her pool of NPC/Villain chits. Blue Chits: High rank. Using a blue chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player. Any one of the benefits of the White chits as listed above. May remove a single die from a 3d6 roll you control, to maximize chance of success/hit. (Making the roll a "3" or less does not activate a critical hit.) Power Stunt: Player may choose to utilize active points of a power of their character for an effect not specifically paid for with points, but within the SFX of the power. Ex: A character with an EB defined as “flame blast” wishes to extinguish a fire in a doorway blocking escape for civilians. The character does not have a power that would normally allow him to do this, but by throwing a blue chit, for one action, he can put the active points of the EB into Change Environment: Extinguish/Reduce Normal Fires (or something similar) and the player can then perform the desired action. Minor Scene Change: Player may choose to alter or set a small piece of the scene for character or story advantage. Ex. “There is a pack of dry matches in the old hunting shack. Just what I need to light my torch to fight the vampire!” or “As I fly in, I see an open skylight allowing me access to the building without breaking in!” GM and group agreement on what is appropriate necessary. Make the impossible, possible: Player may throw a blue chit to turn an action with little or no chance of success, into one with a standard chance of success. Ex. Even for a superhero, diving through the window of a moving car, snatching the kidnapped child out of the seat and out the other side window without causing a crash or hurting the child would be nigh impossible. A blue chit makes this a simple matter of Acrobatics and grab roll situation. Insert Minor Dramatic Moment: The player may state a dramatic moment into a scene that can initiate story, resolve story. Similar to Minor Scene Change, Minor Dramatic Moment is less about adding an element to the current scene, as to initiating a scene or resolving one. Example: Vigilante Squad has just finished off Don Montelli's goons in the warehouse, as the sounds of sirens and stamping of SWAT boots approaches. A player pushes forward a blue chit and says, "As the police rush in, the smoke clears to find the bodies of Montelli's men, but no sign of us. The police surround the area and helicopters sweep, but we are gone, vanished in the night. My intent is that we get away and don't have to hassle with the law... at least this time." This would be appropriate, assuming the table agreed it was within the bounds of the fiction, and didn't make things unfun, etc. Bypassing a successful Block. Player may choose to throw a blue chit so that an attack that is successfully Blocked still carries through, effectively negating the block. Only a blue chit thrown in response can reassert the Block’s success. Move a result on the Hit Location chart up or down 3 places, either defensively or offensively. (Only used in Heroic games where Hit Location is used.) Gold Chit: There is only one Gold Chit and it has unique abilities. Using the gold chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player. Any one of the benefits of the white, black or blue chits as listed above, without GM drawing a chit. (But this would be a waste.) Primary use of the gold chit is to allow the player to become storyteller/GM in powerful ways. By spending the gold chit, the player gets to insert a scene, event, plot point, result or other situation that they wish to occur. This normally focuses on their character and that character’s Story, but it can encompass the group if all player’s agree. GM still has last word, but mostly it is a group decision on “Is that cool and interesting as a story, and does it make sense for what is happening currently?” Whatever the event/situation/scene, it should have significant effect on current and even future plots, though specific results or repercussions may be unforeseen. Player intent is key. What is the "outcome" the player wishes to occur? Red Chit: There is only one Red Chit and it has unique abilities. Using the red chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player. Exactly the same benefits as the Gold Chit, BUT the GM then takes possession of the Red Chit and has it to be activate a very clear obstacle/challenge/things-go-badly scene against the PCs. You spend the Red Chit knowing that karma is a bitch. GM: Draws after all players. One chit per PC, plus chits for any NPCs/Villains who may have Luck. Unluck: Unluck reduces the number of Luck chits drawn for every level. This primarily effects the GM and the use of Luck chits for certain NPCs, as it is unlikely a PC would take Unluck.

Luck comes up a lot, but I have a major house/bennie rule tied to it. Even the more classic Luck Roll is a thing, when it comes to "is there/isn't there?" moments that come up. "I punch the accelerator and floor it through the red light, so I don't lose the escaping bad guy!" "Roll a luck roll... good luck, you make it through no problems, neutral you'll need a driving check to avoid cross traffic and get through. Bad luck, you get t-boned!" that kind of thing. Used when a judgment call from the GM really is more of a random chance... and only when that random is dramatically important.

I don't think I answered this question. Everyone draws from the same bag, so only one Gold/Red for that session. I am thinking about adding the rules to the Red Chit, "Once drawn, this chit will stay with the character until used. It will take the slot of drawn chits in later sessions, until used." I want to do this, because TWICE now they have drawn the Red Chit and been "too afraid" to use it. My games are SO NOT PUNISHING to players. I say Yes to everything. The whole point is to allow them more freedom and influence on the game... but player paranoia of giving the GM the Red Chit... sigh... risk avoidance is such a strong motivator in people.

Right... if a player wanted to try a lower AP/END character in a sub-campaign designed for higher, it would be a conscious choice, with the group's permission, with a build that still allowed them to contribute/participate in the game. (In most cases, what happens is that the AP/END really isn't as low as the think it will be, it just isn't spent on raw damage and defense.) Sometimes the player wants to play a type of character (I love Daredevil!) but the sub-campaign is more "Avengers vs. Kree!) and it just doesn't fit. That is why we have other sub-campaigns, so we can play the "crime fighting martial arts team" in their own milieu. Basically, yes. What you wrote/riffed is essentially the more detailed version of "Are we all cool with that?" Differences of END/AP only really matter if the "in play" feels wrong, unbalanced, unfun during actual play. If the guy playing Bat Hound is really ok with mostly running around barking to alert the others and tugging on the villains cape to distract him while Batman does all the real work, and all the players are having fun with that, then there isn't a problem. (Usually, of course, that is not the case.) You are right, that SPD is a key balancing factor. In the example above, Terran is a 5 and Hope a 7. While not a significant a difference in my game as RAW, it is still a noticeable advantage to Hope that Terran doesn't have. There is basically five key concepts of "combat competence" right? 1) Number of actions - Speed 2) Damage dealt - DC level 3) Defenses - PD/ED, etc. 4) Ability to hit - OCV 5) Avoiding being hit - DCV Not that I'm advocating such, but is there some kind of equation that could be figured that is a good estimate of balancing combat competence?

You had me at "crazy violence" and "well written." Thanks!

This is good? Cool. It has been a maybe for me, but wasn't sure. I'll definitely move it up on the list.

I think the disconnect for me on this is that we have essentially applied this rule retroactively to PCs already in play, and in doing so, it has helped to indicate "Hey... The Terran in an 87 END/AP character, but Hope is a 70 END/AP character, even though they are built on the same points. Are we all cool with that?" Variation in characters has never been an issue for us*, and in many instances using this new END/AP cap was a very visible way of showing "You do realize your character is more powerful than all the others, right?" And then making sure the group is ok with that. As a play group, everyone builds their characters with the group in mind, and if something is "off" (too weak or too powerful) the group will discuss it and the character get changed. That proprietary sense of character is important for "who they are and their place in the game world" but not so much in how they are built on the page. that gets fiddled with all the time, even mid-game, to make sure it plays out in a fun way. (* I'm confident I could give the exact same character sheet to all my players, and let them come up with the SFX independently, and play them, and it would feel pretty cool and dynamically different. Variation has rarely been an issue for us... so much of it is in the SFX and role playing. The only time it has been commented on was, as the "big three" Vector, Locke and Thermal, became more and more godlike over the years, they tended to begin to have similar base builds... each has Life support, Power Defense, Flash Defense, etc. Mainly because at that level it made sense that they had a certain level of defense to things that lower powered characters may or may not be able to handle. I remember when the old 4th Ed supplement for the Olympian gods came out, and there was a "Divine Package" or some sort, that basically said, "Aside from what makes them different, ALL the gods have this basic powerset" and had defenses, flight, shape change, etc... because it was where the gods were similar. This was happening organically in the really powerful PCs as they evolved. What was important and distincitive at lower levels was just baseline assumption at higher levels.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You are implying that the RAW implicitly sets a trade-off between DC and CV. A character with lower DC but higher CV is equivalent of someone with higher DC but lower CV. This is reinforced by the idea that you can spend OCV levels to increase DC in certain circumstances. If so, ok. Totally get that, but can't say that has ever been a conscious mentality in our games. i.e. one player saying "I'm 12 DC 8 OCV guy" and the other saying "I'm 10 DC 10 OCV guy, different but equal." (Just saying I don't know that this has ever come up that literally in our play group.) This is a common character concept/thought process in other games? So what this boils down to is an expectation of not just an AP/DC cap... but a CV cap... or an expectation that there is give and take between the two for balance reasons. Right? Interesting. I have just never thought about that. Usually CV and balance comes up more with DCV and Defenses. The higher the defenses, the lower the DCV. Hard to hit vs. hard to hurt. We all know that Hero is not a system that allows the "minimal defenses, I just never get hit" guy to work. But the system allows you to build defenses to mimic the concept of "never get hit" like Combat Luck or Damage Reduction, etc. So... does a cap (whatever form that takes) need to take into account CV. Hmmm... hadn't considered that, as it hasn't really been an issue that has needed addressing in my games, but worth consideration. The END as a cap was never intended to reflect limits on anything other that DC and general AP level.

I think I forgot to mention that the Luck Chits in my game are "use 'em or lose 'em" to encourage the spend of them during a session. They renew each session. Sometimes games go by and none, if any chits are spent based on how the game plays. Sometimes the PCs just own the bad guys because they are never really pressed hard enough, so the chits aren't used up and PCs are able to just be really heroic. Sometimes, all the best chits can't keep a PC for getting greased when the dice just hate him (as happened recently.) I think the only downside I've noticed is that, in general, players can start to get a little cocky, since the chits can bail them out of the typical number of tough situations in a game session, but honestly, I'd rather have PCs who are willing to jump into action, than those too afraid to do anything because "Damn! I might get shot!" Confidence on the part of the PLAYER that their character is competent and can be successful is a good thing for play, IMO.

Not quite sure of your example, but if you are referring to "trade OCV combat skill levels for damage" then I don't think it really matters. No maneuver, or damage increase, aside form pushing, can go over the END/AP limit, so the levels wouldn't cause any damage increase. Keeping the levels in OCV is correct. Now, if they had 60 END/AP, but only bought a 10d6 EB for some reason... they could use OCV levels or something else to get the EB to 12d6 without pushing.

Honestly, they almost never got used in my games either... until this one character, I mentioned above, whose mini-brick STR was less than her END/AP (which was higher for her main powers, flying, EB, Force Field) so she started using haymakers when possible, to do more punching damage, but within her "END/AP range" It is an interesting little side-effect... but yeah... normally Haymaker never gets used. The lag until the "end of Phase" (or end of action round in my game) is pretty penalizing.

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.

Wow... let me think on that, because that is really, really a great idea. I'm totally going to use this in some way.

I dug up my old house rules document that was last edited for 5th Ed. Here is what I wrote on Luck Chits... though I'm editing this for updates I've made since. I think this covers it all. More detail than matters in actual play, for the most part. Luck & Luck Chits Luck cost 5 pts per level. (Price doubles for each 3 levels bought (so fourth level of Luck costs 10 points) For each level of Luck purchased, players gain: 1d6 of Luck to add to a Luck Roll that can only have positive results. They randomly draw +1 Luck Chit at the beginning of the game from “the bag.” ------ Luck Chit Rules Each PC draws one Luck Chit from “the bag” +1 Chit for every level of Luck at the beginning of the game. “The bag” contains 72 Chits in the following assortment: 30 White Chits, 20 Black Chits, 20 Blue Chits, 1 Red Chit, 1 Gold Chit. A player may decide to “throw a chit” at any point during play where they think it will benefit them, the group or the story to do so. The chits provide the following benefits in play. White Chits: Lowest rank. Using a white chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player: Re-roll one roll you control Take an Abort Action at any time without cost of a regular Action. Take a Recovery at any time without cost of a regular Action or any defensive penalties. Defensively move a Hit Location result one level up or down on the HL chart. (Only used in Heroic games where Hit Location is used.) Black Chits: Middle rank. Using a black chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player: * Any one of the benefits as listed under White Chits. (see above) Any one benefit as listed under Blue Chits. (see below) BUT...Throwing a black chit allows the GM to draw a chit to add to his/her pool of NPC/Villain chits. Blue Chits: High rank. Using a blue chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player. Any one of the benefits of the White chits as listed above. May remove a single die from a 3d6 roll you control, to maximize chance of success/hit. (Making the roll a "3" or less does not activate a critical hit.) Power Stunt: Player may choose to utilize active points of a power of their character for an effect not specifically paid for with points, but within the SFX of the power. Ex: A character with an EB defined as “flame blast” wishes to extinguish a fire in a doorway blocking escape for civilians. The character does not have a power that would normally allow him to do this, but by throwing a blue chit, for one action, he can put the active points of the EB into Change Environment: Extinguish/Reduce Normal Fires (or something similar) and the player can then perform the desired action. Minor Scene Change: Player may choose to alter or set a small piece of the scene for character or story advantage. Ex. “There is a pack of dry matches in the old hunting shack. Just what I need to light my torch to fight the vampire!” or “As I fly in, I see an open skylight allowing me access to the building without breaking in!” GM and group agreement on what is appropriate necessary. Make the impossible, possible: Player may throw a blue chit to turn an action with little or no chance of success, into one with a standard chance of success. Ex. Even for a superhero, diving through the window of a moving car, snatching the kidnapped child out of the seat and out the other side window without causing a crash or hurting the child would be nigh impossible. A blue chit makes this a simple matter of Acrobatics and grab roll situation. Insert Minor Dramatic Moment: The player may state a dramatic moment into a scene that can initiate story, resolve story. Similar to Minor Scene Change, Minor Dramatic Moment is less about adding an element to the current scene, as to initiating a scene or resolving one. Example: Vigilante Squad has just finished off Don Montelli's goons in the warehouse, as the sounds of sirens and stamping of SWAT boots approaches. A player pushes forward a blue chit and says, "As the police rush in, the smoke clears to find the bodies of Montelli's men, but no sign of us. The police surround the area and helicopters sweep, but we are gone, vanished in the night. My intent is that we get away and don't have to hassle with the law... at least this time." This would be appropriate, assuming the table agreed it was within the bounds of the fiction, and didn't make things unfun, etc. Bypassing a successful Block. Player may choose to throw a blue chit so that an attack that is successfully Blocked still carries through, effectively negating the block. Only a blue chit thrown in response can reassert the Block’s success. Move a result on the Hit Location chart up or down 3 places, either defensively or offensively. (Only used in Heroic games where Hit Location is used.) Gold Chit: There is only one Gold Chit and it has unique abilities. Using the gold chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player. Any one of the benefits of the white, black or blue chits as listed above, without GM drawing a chit. (But this would be a waste.) Primary use of the gold chit is to allow the player to become storyteller/GM in powerful ways. By spending the gold chit, the player gets to insert a scene, event, plot point, result or other situation that they wish to occur. This normally focuses on their character and that character’s Story, but it can encompass the group if all player’s agree. GM still has last word, but mostly it is a group decision on “Is that cool and interesting as a story, and does it make sense for what is happening currently?” Whatever the event/situation/scene, it should have significant effect on current and even future plots, though specific results or repercussions may be unforeseen. Player intent is key. What is the "outcome" the player wishes to Red Chit: There is only one Red Chit and it has unique abilities. Using the red chit allows ONE of the following by choice of the player. Exactly the same benefits as the Gold Chit, BUT the GM then takes possession of the Red Chit and has it to be activate a very clear obstacle/challenge/things-go-badly scene against the PCs. You spend the Red Chit knowing that karma is a bitch. GM: Draws after all players. One chit per PC, plus chits for any NPCs/Villains who may have Luck. Unluck: Unluck reduces the number of Luck chits drawn for every level. This primarily effects the GM and the use of Luck chits for certain NPCs, as it is unlikely a PC would take Unluck.

I don't actually use HAP... and in fact I'm going to go look that up and see what that is. I have a home grown "Chit" system that replaces "Luck" as written. I think it performs the general idea the same. I do agree the point in that the players have control. They can see what HAP or Luck resources they have for that game, and plan accordingly. In gritty games, I like it a lot, because it lets me put the PCs through meat grinders that would inevitably result in TPK if simply left to the dice, but the Luck Chits enable the players to over-write critical moments that would grease them, and push through to more dramatic moments. Mechanically, it adds a very clear sense of drama, as the players use up their chits, they know that they are more and more vulnerable. Making the GM "throw a chit" to save a bad guy (he gets an extra dodge or block or recovery) is a "victory" for the players in that it is an obvious sign of wearing the bad guys down, etc. I really like these types of mechanics for the drama they bring to the table. The tactile sense of picking up the shiny chit and making the "I'm spending this!" and toss it in, gesture, are often great story moments that shift the narrative. While, at the same time, the majority of the task resolution comes down to traditional rolls to hit/succeed, etc.

I live outside Detroit (Ann Arbor/Ypsi) and love going to Toronto. Amazing city with the worst drivers this side of Boston... but otherwise very cool place to visit.

This is the core of it all... is the power of Density Increase really a -1 Limitation? That is essentially what this comes down to... a pre-built limitation for a specific set of powers. Is getting your powers from DI as limiting as have them through an OAF? Will you not be able to use your DI limited powers half the time you want to? I'd say most of the time, no... you are getting a price break without really suffering a penalty for it.

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. 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. 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. 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.) 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, pointing out that END Adjustments are a possible problem area... good to know. Also... the concern with Autofire. 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.) The fact that allowing up to 1/2 AP Pushes may be "too much" 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?

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.

McGuffins: Low Level: "What's in the case? WHAT'S IN THE CASE?" Mid Level: "The first sentient android has escaped from New Corp! It doesn't know it isn't human, but if it doesn't get back for maintenance, its internal fusion reactor will eventually explode!" High Level: "The Star-Seed Omnium tears through the bleed at hyper-relative speeds. The source of the All-Life tears through the skin of the universe shattering an unfortunate galaxy in its path and snuffing out a hundred thousand nascent civilizations. For a billion years it burns through real space, warped and shaped by the lesser dimensions in size and force until, slowed to a pace that can be affected by such weak forces as gravity, the diminished husk of the ultimate artifact plunges into a small, star system lost in an non-descript arm of an unremarkable spiral galaxy. Such a husk is still the most powerful thing in the universe, and old, old powers awake to watch its fall. (Cross posted with Lucius) Next Up: Traps

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?)