7
\$\begingroup\$

I want to create a power that expends both Charges and Endurance. Specifically, it's a Mad Max: Fury Road style 'stun the person by firing next to their head', so it requires both firing a bullet and physical effort. However, taking the Charges advantage/limitation eliminates the END cost, and the two Endurance Limitations are simultaneously quite specific and just vague enough to leave room for doubt:

[Costs Endurance], which characters can only buy for Powers that inherently cost no END (such as Resistant Protection or FTL Travel)...

and

Characters cannot take [Increased Endurance Cost] for powers that inherently cost no END (like Life Support).

The HERO system is nothing if not flexible; if I can't take Costs Endurance then I think it's reasonable that doubling the END Cost with the second limitation means I pay half the cost with a Charge and half with END, but now I'm curious. By taking Charges have I changed the "inherent" END rules for the power? Can taking advantages and limitations change the "inherent" nature of a power?

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

3
\$\begingroup\$

I'm reasonably sure that "Powers that inherently cost no END" means powers that in their basic, unmodified form, have no END cost. The examples are consistent with that. If it were phrased as "Powers that have no inherent END cost," that would be clearer.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

This GM allows Powers with Charges to have also Costs Endurance

Whether or not it's officially allowed, it would be impossible—or, at least, far more difficult—to simulate a wide variety of abilities if a Power could not have both the Power Limitation Charges and the Power Limitation Costs Endurance. Anything with minimal uses that also requires energy—for example, a magic spell, a weapon that uses both ammunition and a battery, or a life support system that has air tanks and draws from a vehicle's power—would be much more difficult to simulate if putting the Power Limitation Charges on the power subsequently forbade putting on that Power the Power Limitation Costs Endurance.

With that in mind, this GM blithely ignores that word inherently. (Actually, in the Hero System, 5th Edition that he prefers, that word is instead naturally yet it serves the same purpose.) This GM allows any Power to be made to cost END anyway with the Power Limitation Costs Endurance—with GM approval, of course—, and his games can simulate more powers because of it.

However, this GM would not allow a Power that costs no Endurance to have the Power Limitation Increased Endurance Cost without the Power first having the Power Limitation Costs Endurance. That is, a Power that has no END cost must first get an END cost before increasing its END cost.

To my knowledge, there's no precedent for the Power Limitation Charges (when used traditionally) to be used in conjunction with the Power Limitation Increased Endurance Cost in isolation (i.e. without the Power Limitation Costs Endurance) to somehow split the newly increased END cost between the charge and the character. (A typical charge doesn't pay END at all!) To this GM—who, to be honest, has himself both approved and built a lot of shady Champions characters—, that sounds pretty shady.

That is, in Hero System, 5th Edition, for example, the Power Limitations Costs Endurance and Increased Endurance Cost ×2 both are −½ Power Limitations, so were that proposal approved, the Power essentially costs the character both 1 charge and normal END. However, that'd set the stage for the Power Limitation Increased Endurance Cost ×3—that's a whopping −1 Power Limitation—costing the character 1 charge yet only 1½× the normal END! Likewise, ×5 (a huge −2 Power Limitation) costing 1 charge but only 2½× normal END. While that'd be a lot of END, it'd also be—in this GM's opinion—an unreasonably inexpensive Power.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's a fair point about the scaling of the limitation, though as a GM I'd say the charge counts as the normal END cost, not half the total END cost. So you'd have 2x END +1 charge for -1, and 4x END +1 charge for -2. That could be advantageous, but no more so than normal optimization. Also, this power is instant, so you only get half the value of the Increased Endurance limitation. This will be the case for most powers purchased this way, and even for those that aren't the Charges limitation/advantage will have to be purchased as the more expensive Continuous Charges. \$\endgroup\$
    – Elliot
    Nov 3, 2018 at 4:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PoeticallyPsychotic Yeah, as it's a use of the limitation with which I was unfamiliar, I was imagining it one way, but, certainly, as the GM, you can have it work however you want. Also, my 5th Edition book seems to lack the Instant distinction for Increased END Cost ("Also, this power is instant, so you only get half the value of the Increased Endurance limitation"), having no change in the limitation's value that'd dependent on the kind of power. That must be new to 6th? \$\endgroup\$ Nov 3, 2018 at 14:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah yeah. I've never played 5th, but in 6th you only get half value for that limitation for any power where you only pay to activate it, not to maintain it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Elliot
    Nov 3, 2018 at 19:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .