Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

[AndyAarvark]

Hi all,

 

I have a tunneling Mole-woman in my upcoming adventure, and she wants to increase the DEF which she can tunnel through (+1 DEF per 3 Power points); she also wants to buy reduced END cost. Question is, does the increased tunnel-through-DEF modifier cost END or not? If it does, then she will have to pay reduced END cost on that as well, but does it...?

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

[Ternaugh]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

I believe that's somewhat undefined in 3e. Do what makes the most sense to you and your game.

 

The answer in 5e and above is "Yes, always", meaning that adders are always used to calculate END, even if they don't necessarily always apply. That means that a character pays END for the Non-Combat Multiples for movement powers whenever the power's used, even if the NCM wasn't used that Phase. Same goes for Megascale.

 

JoeG

[Christopher]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

In 5E and 6E we have Adders, wich are Part of the Base Cost (the Value before Advantages).

You don't always have to use adders, but you still calculated the endurance cost based on them.

Extra NCM doublings are an adder.

 

However the extra PD or Movement Speed for tunneling is NOT an adder in 5E or 6E. It is base effect, just like the meters of Running or Flight you bought.

Same way you can use running at less Meters than full move or use Blast on less than full power, you can use tunneling at less than full Material Strenght.

 

And it does seem to make sense that plowing thought reinforced walls (10-16 PD) is harder/more tiring than through dirt (2-3 PD).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

I believe that's somewhat undefined in 3e. Do what makes the most sense to you and your game.

 

I'm with Joe here. I think that an absolute answer in HERO is likely to find itself somewhere where the answer is absolutely wrong.

 

On the face of it you might think that it makes sense to spend more END cutting through higher defences. However, that can be entirely dependent on the tools available to you.

 

If you have ultra-sharp adamantium claws, that might help you cut through rock as if it were dirt. The effort involved would all be due to moving the earth and thus the END involved should be based on the effort, not the sharpness of your tools...

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

That always bothered me. Sharp and hard does not mean that it is easy to cut through something. I could take a diamond knife sharpened as much as it can be and I still would not be able to cut through a gold block with a single swipe. I could doubtless saw through it given several minutes, or hours, but simple atomic friction is going to prevent me pushing the blade far into the metal. Even 'wonder materials' like adamantium would suffer the same problem: sharper, harder materials would certainly make it easier to cut through stuff but what really matters is the force behind the blade. Wolverine is not strong enough to cut through hardened steel bars with a swipe, not matter how astonishing his claws are.

 

Irrelevant, I know, I'm just saying. Carry on.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

Not irrelevant but what it comes down to is whether the energy is spent cutting the surface or making the hole. I would imagine that cutting the surface can be made easier without increasing the energy spent by focussing the energy to smaller surface area and so increasing the psi of the attack. However that is no help at making the hole....

 

Adamantium claws may not be a realistic example but it is a good source material one...

[AndyAarvark]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

Funnily enough 'Adamantium Claws' are exactly what we are talking about, here... They inflate up to enormous size when she fires up her 'Instant Change' power!

 

...Anyway, the problem is working out if Tunneling in 3e should be treated as a regular power as in 5e and 6e, or if it more closely resembles additional Running. If I go with additional running, then the END cost is variable (which I think is fine), but what about the Reduced END cost multiplier? Apply to the maximum, or apply to just the base Tunneling cost - what to do about reducing the END cost of the additional, variable amount?

 

Cheers for the input, all...

[Christopher]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

First you calculate the total amount of endurance for all the powers.

If you don't use the full amount of power, you only use a equal amount of endurance.

 

For example:

10" Flight(20), 4 NCM Doublings (20); 40 Active points and 4 End

Flying at 10" Combat Speed: 4 End

Flying at 320" Non Combat Speed: 4 End

Flying at 5" Combat Speed: 2 End

Flying at 160" Non Combat Speed: 2 End

Hovering: 1 End.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

First you calculate the total amount of endurance for all the powers.

If you don't use the full amount of power, you only use a equal amount of endurance.

 

For example:

10" Flight(20), 4 NCM Doublings (20); 40 Active points and 4 End

Flying at 10" Combat Speed: 4 End

Flying at 320" Non Combat Speed: 4 End

Flying at 5" Combat Speed: 2 End

Flying at 160" Non Combat Speed: 2 End

Hovering: 1 End.

 

For 6e, I'd recommend looking at the "Full Power" section on p. 131. Even if you are using your power at a lower rate, all adders count toward END. So in your example, it would be 3 END as a minimum to use the power. Mind you, I don't have a problem with doing it your way, which is actually easier "on the fly" during play.

 

JoeG

[Tasha]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

Funnily enough 'Adamantium Claws' are exactly what we are talking about, here... They inflate up to enormous size when she fires up her 'Instant Change' power!

 

...Anyway, the problem is working out if Tunneling in 3e should be treated as a regular power as in 5e and 6e, or if it more closely resembles additional Running. If I go with additional running, then the END cost is variable (which I think is fine), but what about the Reduced END cost multiplier? Apply to the maximum, or apply to just the base Tunneling cost - what to do about reducing the END cost of the additional, variable amount?

 

Cheers for the input, all...

 

Ok,

 

first 3eC pg 32 "the cost of Reduced Endurance is based on the cost of all parts of a Power that costs End"

 

3eC pg 78 "All Skills and some Powers do not cost END to use. These Powers are marked "No Endurance Cost" in their cost summery"

 

3eC pg 19 "Powers that cost no END to use are listed as such; otherwise, the Power costs END to use."

 

3eC pg 35 "TUNNELING cost: 5 Power Points for 1" Tunneling per phase, +1 Defense that you can Tunnel thought for +3 power Points"

 

So, no mention of adders being 0 end anywhere in the powers section or in Endurance rules. Also Armor Piercing Advantage DOES cost end. Also Tunneling does also cost end. Therefore the additional def tunneled though does cost end as well.

 

Tasha

[Tasha]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

For 6e, I'd recommend looking at the "Full Power" section on p. 131. Even if you are using your power at a lower rate, all adders count toward END. So in your example, it would be 3 END as a minimum to use the power. Mind you, I don't have a problem with doing it your way, which is actually easier "on the fly" during play.

 

JoeG

To our 3ed friend who's thread we just hijacked... in 4e and later End costs on powers go down to Active Points /10 = end cost. Basically all powers in 4e and later cost half the end they do in 3e and earlier.

 

I think you are looking for this quote from 6e1 pg 131 "A character does not have to use all of a power’s Adders, unless the GM rules otherwise.For example, if a character has Flight 40m, x16 Noncombat, he can choose to fly only 40m and not use his extra Noncombat Movement multiples. However, he must still pay END based on the Active Points of the Power used (with Adders)."

 

I find the last sentence to be kind of vague. Is it that I pay end based on the Active points I use + Adders that I use or that I pay end based on Active points + all of the Adders purchased with the power?

 

ie 20m(10")(20pts) flight x32 NCM (+20pts)

Hover 1 end or Hover 3 end?

 

I checked the FAQ and nothing on this specifically (I searched Endurance). I find that I prefer the idea that you only pay end based on the Adders you use. Otherwise you might see players doing the following

"Multipower 62 points"

4m Flight 40m x32NCM

 

Apparently you don't have to allocate the Adder to a Multislot if you don't wish to use it.

 

6e1 pg 408 "As noted on 6E1 316, a character doesn’t always have to use the Adders on a power. If a character has a power with an Adder in a Variable slot, he doesn’t have to allocate reserve points to the Adder if he’s not using that Adder (but the Adder still affects the END cost of the power). If the slot is Fixed, the allocated amount is set, and doesn’t change regardless of whether he uses the Adder."

 

This seems to indicate the latter interpretation of the rule ie "pay end based on Active points + all of the Adders purchased with the power" Though this seems kind of unfair to people who do buy adders for powers. They end up paying endurance on a part of the power whether or not they are actually using that part of the power.

[Christopher]

Re: Another 'Old School' 3rd edition question about END cost

 

However' date=' he must still pay END based on the Active Points of the Power used (with Adders)."[/quote']

When you descorstuct the sentence into it's part, it becomes clearer:

"the Active Points of the Power used"

At least they thought about using terms that allow for using Capitals, so it's easier to detect the Nouns.