Healing NERFED - petition

[SuperGuy]

I just got back from DunDraCon and found that everyone ignores the 5th Ed healing rules and sticks with 4th, with the exception of the point cost. Can we get that changed back? 10pts for 1d6 Healing. Can heal up to maximum dice rolled. So 4d6 can heal up to 24 points. IE first roll of 14 heals 14 points, second roll of 13 heals 10 points (14 + 10 = 24max), not 0 as per the rules.

At least for Champions, I don't think we're interested in keeping track of each wound and healing that individually.

Thanks... post if you agree.

Quoted from below:
Regen aside, you bring up my point of the built in restriction. I think it just slows the game down having to keep track of what was healed and for how much. Making the 4d6 standard effect 12pts with current rules will only allow 12pts to be healed... ever. At least with the "up to max roll" with standard effect you'll be able to heal 24pts... (with 2 healing rolls) which is what you're paying for when you buy the power. That's all I'm saying.

Old school: 4d6 heals 24pts for 20pts, 5th ed only heals 12pts for 40pts... that's what I'm mean by NERFED. My suggestion is to make a happy compromise of healing 24pts for 40pts.

[Lord Mhoram]

Actually I like the 5th version, once the instituted the advantage for letting you decrease the "no heal delay."

Regen and Damage Shield - those I use the 4th ed version of. :)

[SuperGuy]

I would like to point out I'm making a distinction between Hero and Champions. Hero being fantasy and street level and Champions being superheroes and cosmic powers. I think 5th ed works well for Hero based campaigns.

[Thia Halmades]

I only have the 5th Ed rules, so for me it's a moot point, but having read the intro notes, I think generally I prefer 5th.

[Lord Mhoram]

I would like to point out I'm making a distinction between Hero and Champions. .

Well, as Champions is just the superhero setting using the HERO rules, I don't see a difference. :D

As for changing rules from the core to genre - I detest that concept. Powers and skills and such should work the same from genre to genre (albiet with perhaps required advantages or limitations to fit that genre - but everything should be by the book legal).

[Hyper-Man]

Actually I like the 5th version, once the instituted the advantage for letting you decrease the "no heal delay."

Regen and Damage Shield - those I use the 4th ed version of. :)

Take a look at the following:

7 Regeneration: Healing 1d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (20 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2) [Notes: No Healing Max (see FREd p. 120).] - END=0

21 Healing BODY 2d6 (standard effect: 6 points), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2) (70 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2), Always On (-1/2) - END=0

The second build will 'heal' 3 BODY per Turn and costs exactly 3 times as much as the first 'Regeneration' build. 1 BODY would not counteract the effects of being at negative BODY if the optional bleeding rules were being used. I see nothing wrong with the 5th edition costing mechanic.

[Lord Liaden]

One thing that does bother me about 5E Healing (well, there's more than one, but I'll stick to one point for now) ;) is that it has built-in "anti-abuse" restraints on when and how it can be used. Frankly, as GM I would prefer that I decide what would be abusive in my game. If I want less restrained versions of character healing for my campaign I would like to have the mechanics for that available within the rules. If I want more restraint I can always slap appropriate Limitations on the Power myself. Many other Powers and abilities in HERO System have the potential for abuse if the GM doesn't monitor them; that's why they have warning signs next to their descriptions.

I never had a problem with the Aid model for healing from 4E, and I find the "doesn't fade up to starting level" approach much simpler and more flexible for Aid and for Transfer. If 5E had kept that but simply doubled the cost of Aid as it is now, I would have been quite content.

[Lord Mhoram]

I see nothing wrong with the 5th edition costing mechanic.

The cost doesn't but me, more than the cumbersome build. I generally either use the 4th version, of just build it out like that and call it a talent.
Regenration: The character heals 1 body per turn. Cost 7

It's all the aesthetics of it. :p

But as I do like things book legal, I think I will build 4th ed Regen as a formal talent for my games. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

One thing that does bother me about 5E Healing (well, there's more than one, but I'll stick to one point for now) ;) is that it has built-in "anti-abuse" restraints on when and how it can be used.

Good points as always. :)

[Lord Liaden]

Take a look at the following:

7 Regeneration: Healing 1d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (20 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2) [Notes: No Healing Max (see FREd p. 120).] - END=0

21 Healing BODY 2d6 (standard effect: 6 points), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2) (70 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2), Always On (-1/2) - END=0

The second build will 'heal' 3 BODY per Turn and costs exactly 3 times as much as the first 'Regeneration' build. 1 BODY would not counteract the effects of being at negative BODY if the optional bleeding rules were being used. I see nothing wrong with the 5th edition costing mechanic.

In the case of Regeneration two things put me off. One is the complexity of the build, the steps you have to go through to "grandfather" the very specific effect of what was a separate power under 4E. The other is exactly what you point out, that Regen has no Healing max which is a fundamental feature of Healing; yet the Regeneration construct doesn't provide any Advantage or other adjustment to account for that. Why go through all the effort of building a power construct according to the rules if you're just going to handwave part of it anyway?

I prefer just adding the new Adders and Limitations from 5E Regeneration to the 4E Power - much simpler and cleaner. Granted the Adders can make it more expensive that way, but the Limitations have a much greater effect and may result in fewer Real Points.

[Edsel]

Our group has been using the 5th Edition version since the change was made. I have no problem with it and like the way it works.

[Lord Liaden]

And you have every right to. :)

[SuperGuy]

Regen aside, you bring up my point of the built in restriction. I think it just slow the game down having to keep track of what was healed and for how much. Making the 4d6 standard effect 12pts with current rules will only allow 12pts to be healed... ever. At least with the "up to max roll" with standard effect you'll be able to heal 24pts... (with 2 healing rolls) which is what you're paying for when you buy the power. That's all I'm saying.

Old school: 4d6 heals 24pts for 20pts, 5th ed only heals 12pts for 40pts... that's what I'm mean by NERFED. My suggestion is to make a happy compromise of healing 24pts for 40pts.

[Hyper-Man]

Why go through all the effort of building a power construct according to the rules if you're just going to handwave part of it anyway?

I'd be willing to be that at one time early in the developement of 5E there was a debate about including this ability as a Talent instead of a Power. There probably needs to be a 3rd category somewhere between Talent and Power. The best example besides Regeneration is Instant Change. Eidetic Memory is another. I always include the 5E and 5ER power constructions for it on character sheets to better describe it. The word 'regeneration' also has different meanings than the word 'healing' for many people. It implies 'always on' so why not state it in the build.

here's another alternative build:

14 2 BODY Regeneration: Healing BODY 1d6+1 (standard effect: 4 points), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2) (45 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2), Always On (-1/2) - END=0

Note that this build does not have a 'healing maximum'.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I just got back from DunDraCon and found that everyone ignores the 5th Ed healing rules and sticks with 4th, with the exception of the point cost.That's weird, because I was at DunDraCon, and I didn't even talk to anyone about what Healing rules I use... much less lie to them and say I stick with 4th edition rules. And here I would have thought I was part of "everyone"... ;)

Thanks... post if you agree.Again, strangely, here I am posting even though I disagree. Weird...


:winkgrin:

[Derek Hiemforth]

The word 'regeneration' also has different meanings than the word 'healing' for many people. It implies 'always on' so why not state it in the build.This is why I think Regeneration should be modeled using Recovery instead of Healing, Aid, or something else. The HERO System already has a mechanism for regaining one's own lost BODY pips: Recovery. IMO, Regeneration should just be some kind of Adder or Advantage on Recovery that allows you to recover BODY faster than your REC in BODY per month...

[Hyper-Man]

This is why I think Regeneration should be modeled using Recovery instead of Healing, Aid, or something else. The HERO System already has a mechanism for regaining one's own lost BODY pips: Recovery. IMO, Regeneration should just be some kind of Adder or Advantage on Recovery that allows you to recover BODY faster than your REC in BODY per month...

Not a bad idea except when considering the interactions of other adjustment powers and that a character's REC is considered Inherent but his Regeneration might not be. Not a situation that would come up often but worth considering.

[Lord Liaden]

I'd be willing to be that at one time early in the developement of 5E there was a debate about including this ability as a Talent instead of a Power.

You know, that sounds about right. :)


here's another alternative build:

14 2 BODY Regeneration: Healing BODY 1d6+1 (standard effect: 4 points), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Decreased Re-use Duration (1 Turn; +1 1/2) (45 Active Points); Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), -1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2), Always On (-1/2) - END=0

Note that this build does not have a 'healing maximum'.

I for one would be satisfied with an additional Advantage, "No Healing Maximum." Maybe based on Cumulative, i.e. +1/2.

[Sean Waters]

I'm fine with 5th edition healing but I really see red every time I even glance at regeneration.

HyperMan's build is a lot closer to the way it should be done under the rules but still uses 'persistent' to make a power constant, which it clearly doesn't, at least in my tiny little world.

It is not a cost issue as far as I am concerned, but a build issue, so it doesn;t change my ciew of healing per se, just this applciaiton of it.

Regen/1=10 points always seemed so much cleaner, and I wholeheartedly agree it should be presented like a talent, even if it is (technically) not.

[SuperGuy]

You know, that sounds about right. :)

I for one would be satisfied with an additional Advantage, "No Healing Maximum." Maybe based on Cumulative, i.e. +1/2.

That's a good idea but I think a bit powerful for +1/2. A game would drag if someone kept healing the damage just taken. The built in max restiction, overall, is a good idea but I would be willing to consider a no max adder of +1.

[Sean Waters]

This is why I think Regeneration should be modeled using Recovery instead of Healing, Aid, or something else. The HERO System already has a mechanism for regaining one's own lost BODY pips: Recovery. IMO, Regeneration should just be some kind of Adder or Advantage on Recovery that allows you to recover BODY faster than your REC in BODY per month...

Steps down the time table at +1/4 per step works pretty well, although the build gets a little more complex if you think about it too hard.

[Lord Liaden]

Given that Aid has a subset base Power, Succor, which has a different cost and substantially different mechanics, I'm not sure why we couldn't have just had a Regeneration Power as a subset of Healing with its own distinctive mechanics.

[Sean Waters]

Not a bad idea except when considering the interactions of other adjustment powers and that a character's REC is considered Inherent but his Regeneration might not be. Not a situation that would come up often but worth considering.

My emphasis: not by me, it isn't.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Not a bad idea except when considering the interactions of other adjustment powers and that a character's REC is considered Inherent but his Regeneration might not be. Not a situation that would come up often but worth considering.Characteristics aren't Inherent... if they were, you couldn't Drain them. :)

Really, even better than a game mechanic that would allow you specifically to Recover BODY faster than normal, would be a game mechanic that allowed you to do things faster than normal in general. Perhaps a Power could be defined that allows characters to perform tasks at one step up the Time Chart for every "X" points they pay, etc.

This would allow effects like Regeneration to be rolled in together with other effects (such as a speedster cleaning a whole house in an instant) that boil down to "this happens faster than normal."

[tesuji]

My thoughts...

healing and healing restrictions etc... specifically things like "game drags if healing cures all the damage after the fight" is that those are GENRE issues not model issues.

"is it appropriate for there to be quick healing of damage after a fight?" is franly a setting issue. In many superheroes , that is just fine. In some, it wont be. In fantasy hero, its likely going to be a problem but just so might reliable flight or reliable "create water" or reliable "summon weapon".

While there are some inherent balancing elements built into HERO, NND costs twice as much per die as EB, the general way to handle the more genre/setting related issues is not with inherent mechanics built into the power but with GM FIAT. if the Gm decides "this is abusive for this game" he then says "nope, not in this game" or he says "ok but only under these circumstances."

So i fall into the camp which says "don't inherently limit healing to fantasy hero levels mechanically and then make me jump thru hoops to get the easy thing to work for supers.

Honestly, for many supers games, healing and regen isn't that big of a deal cuz body damage is more rare than in other genres. That also means it should be LESS EXPENSIVE, not more than in fantasy hero where it is frankly a really big deal.

Thoughts on REGEN:: too complicated and the handwave of the big limit on healing makes one wonder why have the limit. Also if you are going to use the EXTRA TIME as the basis for the lims, why then reinvent the scale for extra time halfway thru (initial figure is - 11/4 for "per turn" but now each step after that is cut to only -1/4 instead of just using extra time?) I really like the notion of "recover body per month" and then "for each +1/2 you move it down the time chart" which BTW makes 1 body per turn cost something like... 8 cp added on top of the base 2 cp for recovery 1. Thats close enough to 10 cp per 1 body per turn for me. and its simple. A

HEALING and AID: Frankly to me, "cant go above normal levels" and "points dont fade unless above normal levels" are lose enough to even as to make healing/aid the RKA/HKA of adjustment powers. Cost the same, just use one for "raising and the other for fixng" and leave most everything else identical between the two powers. No must roll higher nonsense unless for some reason the Gm decides to allow it as a lim, something between the typical "roll and add" and the - 1/2 all or nothing you sometimes see. -1/4 only counts highest roll". or maybe...

Standard roll and accumulate up to max possible
-1/4 Partial Cumulative: Subsequent applications take highest roll with +1 for each non-highest application (as seen built-in entangle and other places)
-1/2 All or nothing: Either does the thing or fails, no accumulation. take one roll.

[Hyper-Man]

Characteristics aren't Inherent... if they were, you couldn't Drain them. :)

Really, even better than a game mechanic that would allow you specifically to Recover BODY faster than normal, would be a game mechanic that allowed you to do things faster than normal in general. Perhaps a Power could be defined that allows characters to perform tasks at one step up the Time Chart for every "X" points they pay, etc.

This would allow effects like Regeneration to be rolled in together with other effects (such as a speedster cleaning a whole house in an instant) that boil down to "this happens faster than normal."

My bad...

Couldn't Overall Levels do this? Every 3 Overall Levels can be used to move down 1 level on the Time Chart. 6 would turn a Month into a Day. Slap a -2 Limitation on it and you have ~ 1 Body Regeneration / 2 hours based on a 12 REC for 20 real points. Still a little too expensive compared to the Healing approach.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Couldn't Overall Levels do this?Technically no, because Overall Levels only apply to Skills or act as Combat Levels with All Combat, and Recover is neither a Skill nor a Combat Level. :)

[Silbeg]

This is why I think Regeneration should be modeled using Recovery instead of Healing, Aid, or something else. The HERO System already has a mechanism for regaining one's own lost BODY pips: Recovery. IMO, Regeneration should just be some kind of Adder or Advantage on Recovery that allows you to recover BODY faster than your REC in BODY per month...

Huzzah!!!

That's what I like to hear! I have been thinking the same for quite some time. Wasn't there a Digital Hero article to exactly this point?

[Vondy]

I would change two things:

1) make regeneration a distinct power again, or recovery based (have mentioned it before).
2) drop the nanny-system restraints that were built in. A simple note about potential abuse is sufficient.

Indeed #2 is one of my primary criticisms of 5th edition. I don't need the game designer to pat me on the head and tell me how to run my games. A warning for newbies is alright, but not a hard-coded straight-jacket that forces me to house-rule something that shouldn't have been there in the first place into oblivion.

I think the costing is fine. Just my 2 AP.

[Lord Liaden]

Huzzah!!!

That's what I like to hear! I have been thinking the same for quite some time. Wasn't there a Digital Hero article to exactly this point?

Yes, in Steve Long's "Heroglyphs" column from DH #29.

[actingkeith]

Technically no, because Overall Levels only apply to Skills or act as Combat Levels with All Combat, and Recover is neither a Skill nor a Combat Level.

Not to be nit-picky, but on page 70 of 5th Ed Revised:

"The 10-point "Overall Level" can apply to any Skill Roll, Characteristic Roll, PER Roll, Contact Roll, Find Weakness Roll, or any other Roll the GM approves."

Peace,

-k

[actingkeith]

...
2) drop the nanny-system restraints that were built in. A simple note about potential abuse is sufficient.

Indeed #2 is one of my primary criticisms of 5th edition. I don't need the game designer to pat me on the head and tell me how to run my games. A warning for newbies is all right, but not a hard-coded straight-jacket that forces me to house-rule something that shouldn't have been there in the first place into oblivion.
I agree 100%

repped!

[Dust Raven]

I'm not voting. For one Healing did not exist in 4th edition. Actually, that's the only reason I'm not voting. I can't compare two things if only one of them exists.

That little bit of WTF aside...

I think the rules for Healing suck rocks. And you know what? I think all of these alternate suggestions suck rocks too. And you know what else? My alternate suggestion sucks even more rocks! You know why? We can't agree on a replacement. So I'll use the printed rock sucking rules until something is presented that's sound good enough to be universally accepted* by the Hero System community.

*Universally accepted = a percentage of players equal to the percentage of players who accept any other given printed rule that doesn't suck rocks.

[Dust Raven]

My rock sucking suggestions on how to fix Healing (each are independent of the others, pick and choose as you will):

1. Remove the "best roll" crap. It's cumulative with a max equal to the max possible roll on the dice, and increasable as per other Adjustment Powers such as Aid.

2. Make Regeneration based off of REC, costing something like 5 points per step down the time chart from per Month.

3. Roll Healing back into Aid.

4. Remove Healing from the rules entirely and let each GM/group figure out how to heal stuff since we're all doing that anyway.

[Chris Goodwin]

While there are some inherent balancing elements built into HERO, NND costs twice as much per die as EB, the general way to handle the more genre/setting related issues is not with inherent mechanics built into the power but with GM FIAT. if the Gm decides "this is abusive for this game" he then says "nope, not in this game" or he says "ok but only under these circumstances."

So i fall into the camp which says "don't inherently limit healing to fantasy hero levels mechanically and then make me jump thru hoops to get the easy thing to work for supers.


In my experience, it's a lot easier for the GM to take limits away than it is to apply them. I'd rather see everything nerfed with lots of options for the GM to de-nerf them than see everything mega'd, with options to nerf.

[Hugh Neilson]

I for one would be satisfied with an additional Advantage, "No Healing Maximum." Maybe based on Cumulative, i.e. +1/2.

1d6 Healing has a standard effect of 3. Regeneration gets only 2. Thus, it's really only 2/3 of 1d6 of Healing. 2/3 x 10 x 3/2.75 = 7 points per 1 Regen. The power as modelled uses 1d6 of Healing, and +1 in advantages, so there must be an extra +1 advantage of "no maximum" built in to Regeneration.

In my opinion, for ocnsistency, "decreased re-use time" should have been structured to place 1/turn as a +1 advantage, so it could simnply have been substituted in to Regeneration.

[zornwil]

That's weird, because I was at DunDraCon, and I didn't even talk to anyone about what Healing rules I use... much less lie to them and say I stick with 4th edition rules. And here I would have thought I was part of "everyone"... ;)
Again, strangely, here I am posting even though I disagree. Weird...


:winkgrin:
We didn't have any healing to worry about in Marginally Powered Sit-Com Heroes, either! :)

Although actually I am still running 4th at home, though it didn't come up at the con (and I would have run 5th, anyway, since I try to stick to the norm). I am not sure that it's really an issue in 5th, per se, as much as it is a matter of taste, although I would echo the primary comments of LL.

[SuperGuy]

Actually, just get rid of the example at the top right column of page 120 (non-revised) so I can peacefully misinterpret the Healing rules. :D

[Balabanto]

Actually, I think it wasn't nerfed enough. I hate healing. I run Champions for it's original purpose, Superheroes, and this power should have a STOP next to it for superhero games. When was the last time you saw a superhero game with a cleric who instantaneously healed people.

The system completely overdoes the amount that healing can do, and if the PC's have a healer, and the villains don't, combat is over fairly quickly. What happened to the epic image of a badly wounded Captain America battling the Red Skull, or the fantastic image of a horribly shredded Batman taking on any member of his rogues gallery.

CHAMPIONS DOESN'T NEED CLERICS! THIS IS NOT D+D.

[zornwil]

Why wouldn't superheroes have the ability to heal?

I don't run strictly 4-color supers, so expect to have options for that.

[Balabanto]

It's not a question of why not? It's a question of drama. Having a character who can heal means that realistically, knowing this power is out there, everyone aggros on the healer first and drops them cold to massive negatives. And every combat begins running the same way. Or you give the villains a healer and it just becomes D+D.

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually, I think it wasn't nerfed enough. I hate healing. I run Champions for it's original purpose, Superheroes, and this power should have a STOP next to it for superhero games. When was the last time you saw a superhero game with a cleric who instantaneously healed people.

Off the top of my head, Angel's secondary mutation provides healing powers and Raven of the Teen Titans has an empathic healing ability.

[tesuji]

In my experience, it's a lot easier for the GM to take limits away than it is to apply them. I'd rather see everything nerfed with lots of options for the GM to de-nerf them than see everything mega'd, with options to nerf.

IMX this is not true in a toolkit setup where the Gm is building thw world and the system as is the case typically with HERo. The HERo system relies at most every level on the GM to make decisions over and over as to what is appropriate for his game and what is not and to say "no" when its called for.

HERo5 seems to embrace this even more than previous editions, except healing seems woefully incosistently scaled to what I consider "maybe fantasy hero balanced " but even then only if you assume the Gm disallows regen which sidesteps the fantasy hero lims altogether.

the inconsistency oif approach is what bugs me, in additon to the degree of inconsistency in the rule itself... only case of highest roll wins, handwaving away the cap for regen, altering the time scale lims in mid stream, etc.

Now, any argument for consistency eads to one of two approaches... your preferred nerf it all version or the "totally un-nerfed version. One requires the Gm to remove restrictions he feels inappropriate and the other requires him to add those he feels appropriate.

The catch is, which genre/genres do you use as the "totally nerfed" level?

How nerfed should "teleportation" be for a mafia street level non-supers game? Well pretty nerfed. How nerfed should psi powers be for a serenity game or a babylon 5 game? Pretty nerfed. So do we publish then a TK psi power that costs tons of endurance, requires lots of concentration and years of practice to move a penny (costs a lot) as the base power and then rely on the Gm to rewrite it to suit his four color superheroes game? At that point wouldn't he effectively be building a new power?

Now of course, in truth, my "hero if i did it" would have a lot more flexibility in costs, and each power/advantage/lim might well have several different values
set for differing sample genres and there would be a lot more explanation about "how to scale the costs to suit your game" beyond just the normal "allow/disallow" notion usually put forth... but thats me.

[zornwil]

It's not a question of why not? It's a question of drama. Having a character who can heal means that realistically, knowing this power is out there, everyone aggros on the healer first and drops them cold to massive negatives. And every combat begins running the same way. Or you give the villains a healer and it just becomes D+D.
Hasn't been my experience.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



The system completely overdoes the amount that healing can do, and if the PC's have a healer, and the villains don't, combat is over fairly quickly.

I really must confess, of the many crimes a healer can be accused of, speeding up combat to me doesn't seem to be one i have ever seen. :-)


What happened to the epic image of a badly wounded Captain America battling the Red Skull, or the fantastic image of a horribly shredded Batman taking on any member of his rogues gallery.

both good examples and good justifications for, in games seeking to emulate those comics, the GM saying NO to healer PCs. The HERo standard approach to "this is inappropriate for this game" is usually not so much to reduce the power until it isn't used but for the Gm to identify the trait as inappropriate and refuse it at chargen.




CHAMPIONS DOESN'T NEED CLERICS! THIS IS NOT D+D.


Then a Gm shouldn't for his champions game approve "cleric" PCs.


It's not a question of why not? It's a question of drama. Having a character who can heal means that realistically, knowing this power is out there, everyone aggros on the healer first and drops them cold to massive negatives. And every combat begins running the same way. Or you give the villains a healer and it just becomes D+D.

I ponder if perhaps you mean "it just becomes city of heroes" because your description and terminology like "aggro" etc seems more suited to the CoH computer game than any DND game i ever saw. I mean, I don't recall any sort of "nail the cleric first so he wont heal" tactical doctrine in DnD? usually if there was a clear "first target" t was the mage so he couldn't get his blasting spells off. I seem to recall the "defenders" aor whatever the healers are called in CoH playing a bigger role and thus maybe deserving first target status.

As to your example, if indeed the Gm feels this is inappropriate for his game's style and flavor, he refuses PCs with healing abilities that he feels are inappropriate, and himself declines to build the NPCs that way too.

Honestly, i have never seen healing play a major tactical role overall in superhero games, most of which were not street level games. In supers games I have seen, if healing was taken, it was a character schtick and its main role was in the outside combat issues like healing the sick and such and what that did for the character's story wise.

The value of healing in fantasy and scifi games, where its more heroic level and body damage accumulates more quickly, is much bigger and there is where when the Gm designs his "magic system" or his "scifi gizmos" he takes into account " how much healing do i want" and rules accordingly.

There is no "ome size fits all" for healing as it is one of the very genre specific and even genre defining key elements for being just one little power.

[zornwil]

A common schtick for healing is as Batman's sefl-healing, taking pills or using sauves and the like.

Mages such as Dr. Fate and the like have performed heals, I believe some have been in-combat but if not I would ask why not from a verisimillitude perspective that goes beyond genre, to me (obviously this varies by player/play group).

I've seen healing in supers ombat and I think it can work dramatically well enough. I have seen situatiosn where the sole difference between the team losing and winning was the ability for one member to get others up. The question, if healing exists, in the super-fast firefights that supers battles are is always "do I take the time to heal or do I strike?" and the answer isn't always clear.

PS - I can't recall the last time the villains had a healer on their side in such combats.

[Lord Liaden]

I'm not voting. For one Healing did not exist in 4th edition. Actually, that's the only reason I'm not voting. I can't compare two things if only one of them exists.

Well, that kind of depends on interpretation. ;) Aid under Fourth Edition had an option referred to as "healing" or "standard healing," although those names were never capitalized, which is very close to the Simplified Healing option for Fifth Edition. From HERO System/Champions Fourth Edition p. 58: "Each die of healing restores 1d6 STUN and each BODY rolled on the dice is counted as 1 BODY healed... Such healing can only be used to restore BODY and STUN up to starting values, and the maximum that can be healed is still the maximum that could be rolled on the dice."

Also, Fourth Edition Aid had the same -1/2 Limitation, "Only Restores To Starting Values," as Fifth Edition has; but under 4E once and ability was Aided up to starting values those regained points did not fade. That was effectively the 4E version of Healing, but just based on the rulebook description it does not seem as restricted in use as 5E's.

[Lord Liaden]

In my experience, it's a lot easier for the GM to take limits away than it is to apply them. I'd rather see everything nerfed with lots of options for the GM to de-nerf them than see everything mega'd, with options to nerf.

Interesting. My experience has been exactly the opposite. Defining custom Limitations is usually easier for me than custom Advantages.

[Tiree]

I have to agree with some others here. I have not seen a character with Healing/Regeneration unless it was a schtick. And the ones that have it, have ressurection which adds to the cost.

I haven't played 4ed in years. But I have been playing 5ed for the last year, and healing has not been a factor at all. In fact the healing schticks the players have had, allowed the GM to not pull punches at all... And it was expected when they presented the character builds.

[Chris Goodwin]

In my experience, it's a lot easier for the GM to take limits away than it is to apply them. I'd rather see everything nerfed with lots of options for the GM to de-nerf them than see everything mega'd, with options to nerf.


IMX this is not true in a toolkit setup where the Gm is building thw world and the system as is the case typically with HERo. The HERo system relies at most every level on the GM to make decisions over and over as to what is appropriate for his game and what is not and to say "no" when its called for.


Emphasis mine. Pretty much proving my point for me.

I'd rather the GM have to say "yes" when it's called for.


The catch is, which genre/genres do you use as the "totally nerfed" level?

Let the GM decide.


How nerfed should "teleportation" be for a mafia street level non-supers game? Well pretty nerfed. How nerfed should psi powers be for a serenity game or a babylon 5 game? Pretty nerfed. So do we publish then a TK psi power that costs tons of endurance, requires lots of concentration and years of practice to move a penny (costs a lot) as the base power and then rely on the Gm to rewrite it to suit his four color superheroes game? At that point wouldn't he effectively be building a new power?

Not necessarily. If the base TK Power includes the "mostly nerfed" version as the base or default option, then the "much less nerfed option" as option B, the GM should be able to choose one or the other. Or, he would have them both as guidelines in case he wanted to create his own version.


Now of course, in truth, my "hero if i did it" would have a lot more flexibility in costs, and each power/advantage/lim might well have several different values
set for differing sample genres and there would be a lot more explanation about "how to scale the costs to suit your game" beyond just the normal "allow/disallow" notion usually put forth... but thats me.

Ditto. That's sort of what I'm getting at with the nerfed/non-nerfed idea before.

[Chris Goodwin]

Interesting. My experience has been exactly the opposite. Defining custom Limitations is usually easier for me than custom Advantages.

Not even defining custom Advantages so much as saying "This is how I want Power X to work," when what I want is the nerfed version. If I wanted Healing in a game to, for instance, be infinitely cumulative, when the default condition is as it is in 5th, the players will have a lot easier time accepting it than they would if I wanted it to work as it does in 5th if the default condition were the 4th edition version.

In my (admittedly limited) GMing experience it's easier to give than to take away.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



Emphasis mine. Pretty much proving my point for me.
I'd rather the GM have to say "yes" when it's called for.

too much work for me. See, i am lazy. So i want to choose a system that at its core is as close to what i want to run as possible. That means i have to make as few changes as possible.

that means i would rather be saying "no" which means only having to speak up and put forth special effort when its something wrong for my game than i am in the practice of saying yes to all the things i want in my game.




Let the GM decide.

The Gm decides for his game but not for whats in the rulebook, which is what this is referring to.

Although, in fact, in an indirect sense he does decide what to put in the rulebook, when he chooses which rulebook to use for his game. But HERo isn;t in the business of getting people to run and use other RPGs.



Not necessarily. If the base TK Power includes the "mostly nerfed" version as the base or default option, then the "much less nerfed option" as option B, the GM should be able to choose one or the other. Or, he would have them both as guidelines in case he wanted to create his own version.

in which case you aren't advocating a nerfed rulebook vs non-nerfed rulebook but rather an inclusive rulebook with many different levels of each already provided and guidelines/recommendations/assistance on making the choices between them.

no argument there.


Ditto. That's sort of what I'm getting at with the nerfed/non-nerfed idea before.


Agreed then.

To be clear in order of "what i want least" to "what i want most most"

1. An inconsistent rulebook which sometimes goes for "no-nerf Gm handle balance" in big ways and which sometimes goes the opposite. IMO this is
5e/5er and i cite healing and multiform as two examples.

2. A nerfed rulebook which presented the weaker side of everything consistently, scaled to the lowest power level for common genres and relies on the Gm to make up the higher scale stuff himself.

3. A no-nerfed rulebook which presents the wide open version of everything consistently and relies on the Gm to limit the use to suit his campaign by limiting characters and traits allowed.

4. A different rulebook which presents most everything as fairly fluid and emphasizes the linkage between "setting" and "value" and provides multiple scales of each with guidance on what to alter and why for various core example genres/settings.

[Derek Hiemforth]

In my (admittedly limited) GMing experience it's easier to give than to take away.I understand exactly what you're getting at... some players will whine and complain if you introduce rules that are stricter than the book's, but rarely will players whine and complain about you introducing rules that are more lenient than the book's.

Despite that, though, I'd still rather see the book rules be as flexible and "open" as possible, relying on GMs to restrict them as needed, mainly because this makes the rules engine more "universal."

[Sean Waters]

I'm with Chris Goodwin: giving makes a popular GM, taking away doesn't, and and anything that makes for a smoother experience is a good thing.

I also like the take balabanto has on things: healing bad. Not because I agree, but because it is a valid viewpoint. I suspect there may be some CoH PvP bitterness, but in a game with tactical considerations, the boosters, nerfers and healers get taken out first. Anything else is practical madness.

We need healing in the system becasue we ought to be able to model almost anything, BUT just because you can doesn't mean you should. the important thing is getting the balance right for YOUR game.

Anyway, enough ambient platitudes for today. Night all.

[zornwil]

I really don't see this whole issue of healers/aiders. Those abilities are just a part of the mix. VPP magician types are always likely to come up with heals/aids in superhero or similar games. I've seen supers games both with and without healing abilities. And no significant difference between the two, either. Obviously, YMMV and does.

[Dust Raven]

Well, that kind of depends on interpretation. ;) Aid under Fourth Edition had an option referred to as "healing" or "standard healing," although those names were never capitalized, which is very close to the Simplified Healing option for Fifth Edition. From HERO System/Champions Fourth Edition p. 58: "Each die of healing restores 1d6 STUN and each BODY rolled on the dice is counted as 1 BODY healed... Such healing can only be used to restore BODY and STUN up to starting values, and the maximum that can be healed is still the maximum that could be rolled on the dice."

Also, Fourth Edition Aid had the same -1/2 Limitation, "Only Restores To Starting Values," as Fifth Edition has; but under 4E once and ability was Aided up to starting values those regained points did not fade. That was effectively the 4E version of Healing, but just based on the rulebook description it does not seem as restricted in use as 5E's.

I suppose. If that's what was meant. I did like that aspect of how Aid worked. No messy bookkeeping. Anything Aided up to starting values simply didn't fade, while anything Aided above starting values faded at the usual (or reduced with the Advantage) rate. I liked that. I wouldn't mind seeing that instead of the Healing Power. Regen could then be based off a Persistent Succor with the Advantage "Regeneration" which would cover the no maximum quirk (and using Succor would solve the issue with making an Instant Power Persistent instead of a Constant one). The cost would be about what it is in 5th using Healing, which is close to what it was in 4th as a stand-alone Power, and could still be applied to more than just BODY.l

[Dust Raven]

CHAMPIONS DOESN'T NEED CLERICS! THIS IS NOT D+D.

It shouldn't need goblins and wizards either, but tell that to Spiderman and Dr. Strange.

[SuperGuy]

Following the Regen aspect of healing in 5th, the limitation built in to healing is ignored for regen, or can you heal again after 1 Turn? The 1d6 Regen standard effect heals 1 body and at post seg 12 can heal another body. So that means at post seg 12 I can cast my heal again. And if not, at what point can I heal a team member again? 24 hours? Actually I found it, Decreased re-use duration +1 1/4. So my 1d6 healing costs me 25pts just to use it once a turn. Whoo hoo 3 Stun and 1 body per turn. Somebody really doesn't like the healing power. This makes it unusable with the current rules for a supers game. Yeah, yeah... any healing is powerful in a fantasy game, but some of us like it rough.

I think the healing rules are unbalanced to the rest of the game where hero went out of their way to hose it instead of putting a nice little stop sign, warning healing may unbalance your game.

[Balabanto]

Well, Hugh, in this case, I'm going to argue against you based on time specifics.

Raven and this other guys powers are SLOW. They're not really an in combat ability. Raven's Empathic healing isn't real quick.

[McCoy]

While I like the fast and easy healing available in D&D and its spawn, Runequest and the others, it is just not genra in 4-color superheroes.

Look at how few characters in the source material have healing (as opposed to regen). There was the Morlocks healer, an empath whose name I can't recall in Wherewolf by night, and --

Lots of high-tech healing happens "between issues," but some characters had injuries that never did heal (Nick Fury, Dr. Strange, Professor X).

[Greywind]

Only fast option of healing I've ever seen represented in any comic is Wolverine, Sabretooth and Hulk with their regen. Anyone else, it takes time, either during or after combat.

[Chris Goodwin]

Following the Regen aspect of healing in 5th, the limitation built in to healing is ignored for regen, or can you heal again after 1 Turn? The 1d6 Regen standard effect heals 1 body and at post seg 12 can heal another body. So that means at post seg 12 I can cast my heal again. And if not, at what point can I heal a team member again? 24 hours? Actually I found it, Decreased re-use duration +1 1/4. So my 1d6 healing costs me 25pts just to use it once a turn. Whoo hoo 3 Stun and 1 body per turn. Somebody really doesn't like the healing power. This makes it unusable with the current rules for a supers game. Yeah, yeah... any healing is powerful in a fantasy game, but some of us like it rough.

3 STUN and 1 BODY per Turn. 15 STUN and 5 BODY per minute. 900 STUN and 300 BODY per hour. And actually that's just per target. If you've got four injured buddies, and your SPD is 4, you can heal each of them for 900 STUN and 300 BODY per hour. If your REC is 8 or more, and the GM is not using LTE rules, you can literally keep that up forever.

Doesn't sound so wimpy now, does it?

Also, 1 BODY Healing is enough to stabilize someone who is dying, no matter how badly they're injured. So you hit 'em once so they stop bleeding, and after combat.... 900 STUN and 300 BODY per hour.


While I like the fast and easy healing available in D&D and its spawn, Runequest and the others, it is just not genra in 4-color superheroes.


Healing in D&D may be fast and easy, but it's also a resource. Each healing spell costs you a spell slot.

I try to emulate that feel in FH by allowing Cumulative Healing if you buy it with a minimum of -2 1/2 in Limitations from the list of Extra Time, Increased END Cost, Expendable Focus, and/or Charges. Which means you can't cast it all day (see above). I've another house rule that if you take one level up the Time Chart from whatever your Healing normally takes to use, you get your max roll for free (which later appeared in FH in a slightly different form).

[SCUBA Hero]

Now of course, in truth, my "hero if i did it" would have a lot more flexibility in costs, and each power/advantage/lim might well have several different values
set for differing sample genres and there would be a lot more explanation about "how to scale the costs to suit your game" beyond just the normal "allow/disallow" notion usually put forth... but thats me.That would make a good Digital Hero article! :thumbup:

[zornwil]

While I like the fast and easy healing available in D&D and its spawn, Runequest and the others, it is just not genra in 4-color superheroes.

And, again, superhero games are NOT strictly 4-color. I do not want the core system to be bound to 4-color superheroes any more than D&D-specific fantasy - but it has to accomodate both within some reason. If we're discussing 4-color supers, sure, I don't have a problem with leaving many of these exotic abillities out. But that is absolutely not the point. I didn't play 4-color supers with the earliest versions of Champions, even though it clearly had some slight orientation to those (I say slight because as RDU Neil and others have argued, it's system actually exposed the inconsistencies and issues with 4-color as much as it supported it).

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, Hugh, in this case, I'm going to argue against you based on time specifics.

Raven and this other guys powers are SLOW. They're not really an in combat ability. Raven's Empathic healing isn't real quick.

But if you remove Healing, you remove Raven's healing power - she can't have it. Angel's secondary mutation also has some limitations - he needs to bleed. That Morlock healer has No Range, if nothing else.

In X-men #137, Prof X forces the X-Men back to consciousness when Dark Phoenix rises. Isn't that a Stun Healing? If not, how did they recover when they were all down for the count? Lifeguard of the XTreme X-Men was also a healer. The Silver Surfer has shown the ability to heal injured people.

It's not a common ability by any stretch (after all, it oesn't help put the bad guy away!) but the power to Heal is far from unprecedented in the comics, contrary to your initial complaint.

[Vondy]

I think some people have a disconnect in terms of champions (hero used for the superhero genre) and the hero-system (which theoretically works for all genres). I don't care if its not appropriate for superheroes because that's not all the system does. I don't even play supers anymore - and haven't in three years. I use it exclusively for fantasy and pulp. Rather, if it is appropriate for any given genre (or at least any major genre) it has a place in the system. Also, if it is appropriate for any given genre then it should not be hard-coded to work better for some genres rather than others, or so that it works for one genre, but not another. THATS WHY WE HAVE FREAKING GENRE BOOKS PEOPLE!!!