Powers Issues -- F-K

[Netzilla]

My thoughts on Regen:

If Steve plans to stick to his rules of 'no going back to rules from older editions' (which I don't personally agree with as a rules design philosophy and I'll leave it at that), then we need a distinct way of handling Regen other than, 'I like how 4th Edition handled it better' (which I'm not saying any of the recent posters have done; but I've seen that stated several times before).

I'd like to see it made into a separate power of its own. That way, it's not in any way bound by whatever balance rules are in place for Healing. The ideas and balance issues between the two are different enough that I feel keeping them separate is justified. As for what the separate Regen power does:

5pts to reduce the time it takes for a character to heal Body (see H5ER pg 424) from Recovery per Month to Recovery per Week. This can be quicker by one step on the time chart for +5 points per step, to a limit of Recovery per Turn for 40 points.

Obviously the Base and Step costs can be adjusted for balance. My gut tells me 5 points is pretty close and 10 is probably too much. I could see 10 or even 15 for the Base and then +5 per step (making the fastest Regen 45 or 50 points).

[Hugh Neilson]

Because otherwise, in any game where healing is relevant, characters come in two states: combat injury/Fully healed and rested. It's a bit irksome to run a game where after every period of activity, the entire group is fully refreshed within a minute or two, if even the bare minimum of healing is present.

Removal of this issue would be the main reason for capping Healing, in my view.

I've come to think that the best path is:
1. Break regeneration out into its own power again. It works fundamentally differently from Healing, as it is.
Increase the base cost of Regeneration (30 points sounds about right) but make it cheaper to buy extra points of Regeneration (5 points per point of Bod?). This would solve the problem that buying Regeneration usable on others is better than healing and the fact that out of combat 1 point of Regeneration is as good as 10, while still making it possible - even easier - to build a "combat regenerator" who recovers superhumanly fast in combat time.

2. Remove Healing (in other words, fold it back into Aid and treat it like all other adjustment powers). This gets rid of the "doesn't fade" exception and the odd rules on maximums. People who want "doesn't fade" can buy out the duration and people who want "healing" can buy "Only Restores To Starting Values (-½)"

I can see retaining Healing as its own power for ease of access, but it should be possible to build Healing with Aid, and Aid with Healing, using advantages and limitations. The ability to do so at least partially vets the balance between the two.

Similarly, I would not remove Transfer, but it should be possible to build it with a Linked Drain and Aid. And it should work like a linked drain and Aid (that is, if the character is aided to the maximum extent, it should still be possible to use it to drain, it just doesn't add to the user's stat). I'd also like to see Transfer be able to choose from Aid and Heal/Regenerate for its result on the user.

Aid can be further fixed by:
Making it cost END, to bring it in line with other Adjustment powers
Dropping the cost to 5 points per d6 (and removing Succor as a seperate power: it can be built off Aid). Instead add a -½ limitation "Powers fade immediately if not maintained"

Adding a new advantage for adjustment powers "Noncombat duration (+1)" which is required for an adjustment power to purchase a delayed fade rate.
The rationale for this is that in 4th Ed. there were numerous abusive Aid constructs based around multiple stat aids with extended duration. Raising the cost to 10 prevented that - but also nerfed the intended use of Aid as temporary combat boost as it became quite point-inefficient. This Advantage keeps the balance.

4th Ed Aid was clearly abused, and 5th Ed went out of its way to prevent such abuse. The biggest abuses I saw, however, were caused by the fact that Aid also Healed (ie did not fade if the stat was not above starting value). Even 1d6 Healing Aid on END, made Continuous and Persistent, is amazingly powerful in a Supers game.

I'd like to see Aid cost END - it's an odd man out in this regard, and I get the sense it lost its END cost because 10 points was too expensive for what it would do, and 5 points was considered too cheap, but the designers wanted nothing in between. A 7 or 8 point per d6 power would not be the end of the world.

I agree Succor need not be a separate power. I also agree that Aid needs to be costed in such a fashion that it's not more efficient to just buy the stats. A lot of the blame here falls into "Self Only". The value of a limitation should depend on what it does to the power, and it need not be consistent between powers. "Self only" is much more limiting for Aid or Healing than, say, Force Wall, so it should carry a greater limitation.

I think the "noncombat duration", where the first increment costs more, is worth consideration. Maybe that first step goes to every 5 minutes (ie "this will never be a factor in combat") instead of every minute. This needs to be considered in light of its impact on Drains, etc., as well, but "down 10 STR for the duration of the combat" probably isn't the end of the world. It would cost 60 points using that +1 advantage to have the 3d6 Drain needed to sap 10 STR on average.

Thus "healing" would cost 5 points per d6 with the advantages Noncombat duration (+1), extended fade rate (1 year*, at +2½) and the limitation Only Restores To Starting Values (-½) for 22 points active, 15 real. It'd work like any other adjustment power, including the ability to be put in frameworks, adjust maximums, fade rates, etc.

Of course, now a real cost of 15 (reduced if we place more limitations on it) means we DO get that 1d6 Healing Spell that can restore all the characters to full fighting strength after each and every combat, something I thought we were trying to avoid. As well, while your 1 year comment is well taken, your typical adventurer may well lose a lot more than 96 BOD in a year, especially if healing is able to restore fully between encounters. Combined with the ruling that each use of Aid fades independently (and I think that ruling should go), that gives adventurers a one year lifespan. Easy solution? Set some level - a year seems reasonable, but we could require the purchase be to a typical lifespan, I suppose - where the fade rate is eliminated.

I'm quite OK with Regeneration being built with Healing, but it needs to be revised to use the "Reduced Re-use Duration" structure or, alternatively, the noncombat fade rate structure, or whatever structure 6e adopts. At the end of the day, Regeneration IS a variant of healing, so it makes sense to fold it in. That said, as a complex build, I would have no problem making it a separate power or talent, based on Healing.

I'd like to see it made into a separate power of its own. That way, it's not in any way bound by whatever balance rules are in place for Healing. The ideas and balance issues between the two are different enough that I feel keeping them separate is justified. As for what the separate Regen power does:

Emphasis added. If that balance is needed for healing, it is also needed for regeneration. If it is not needed, then let's get rid of it.

5pts to reduce the time it takes for a character to heal Body (see H5ER pg 424) from Recovery per Month to Recovery per Week. This can be quicker by one step on the time chart for +5 points per step, to a limit of Recovery per Turn for 40 points.

Obviously the Base and Step costs can be adjusted for balance. My gut tells me 5 points is pretty close and 10 is probably too much. I could see 10 or even 15 for the Base and then +5 per step (making the fastest Regen 45 or 50 points).

Month to week both imply "resting period" to me, so the initial steps are less valuable than the ending steps where Regen becomes combat-effective.

An alternative suggestion seen fairly often on the Boards is a REC advantage, rather than an adder. I'd rather see a staged advantage, for several reasons.

First, the more REC you have, the better this ability becomes. Second, in games where higher REC is common, the fixed price makes this more and more valuable.

Finally, I'd like to see the ability to have a recovery of 1 BOD per turn, as an example. An advantage can be taken on less than full REC, where an adder cannot (or at least grants no point savings for doing so). If we said +1/4 per time increment, the most common suggestion, that would be +2 for a turn, or 8 points for 1 BOD recovered per turn.

Additionally, however,, I believe it should be possible to regenerate things other than BOD, and these constructs fail to allow for that. Healing does allow for that, so basing any Regen construct on Healing is, in my view, preferable. If we assume (big assumption, I know) that 1 BOD regen is reasonably priced at 8 - 10 points, then 1 CP regen should be reasonably priced at 4 - 5 points.

[Markdoc]

I'd like to see it made into a separate power of its own. That way, it's not in any way bound by whatever balance rules are in place for Healing. The ideas and balance issues between the two are different enough that I feel keeping them separate is justified. As for what the separate Regen power does:

5pts to reduce the time it takes for a character to heal Body (see H5ER pg 424) from Recovery per Month to Recovery per Week. This can be quicker by one step on the time chart for +5 points per step, to a limit of Recovery per Turn for 40 points.

Actually this works well (I like it better than my suggestion above) since it scales well. I can even see going to recovery per phase for 45 points, since that's a pretty significant investment in points, and in practical terms would be a way of doing Wolverine-style regeneration. A character with that level of regeneration could still be stunned or even rendered unconscious but would be virtually impossible to kill with normal attacks.

cheers, Mark

[CTaylor]

The source material has a lot more examples of regenerating very, very fast than "kinda fast." In other words, the number of genre characters who regenerate one body per hour is very rare, but once per segment is pretty common.

You need two mechanics, it seems to me: the amount recovered, and the speed it is recovered. Perhaps you recover a small amount very rapidly or a large amount slowly (healing in big chunks). Thus 1 body per phase or 10 body per minute need both to be possible to build.

You also have to decide whether or not you can have other stats than body heal in this manner (can you heal your multipower back like that? Does your END heal faster than just post-12 without a recovery?).

To have a power that really is worthy of the name, you have to have regen able to do other things than just heal body: does it heal back points of transform faster? Does it work to "heal" back points of a duplicate that died (in other words, if your duplicate is killed, can you regenerate the total points of that duplicate and eventually get it back).

Ideally, regeneration would be built with a straight cost that can be modified rather than some other power that has lots of modifiers - it can be based on this sort of construct, but hidden like a talent (the mods are there, but not used, they're in the background).

Instant Change should be more a talent style build as well, even if it is kept with transformation.

[Netzilla]

I'd like to see it made into a separate power of its own. That way, it's not in any way bound by whatever balance rules are in place for Healing. The ideas and balance issues between the two are different enough that I feel keeping them separate is justified. As for what the separate Regen power does:
Emphasis added. If that balance is needed for healing, it is also needed for regeneration. If it is not needed, then let's get rid of it.

The main things I had in mind where those balance issues cause by the fact that Healing, by default, is 'Usable by Others', while Regen isn't. That causes Healing to have balance issues that Regen doesn't.

Month to week both imply "resting period" to me, so the initial steps are less valuable than the ending steps where Regen becomes combat-effective.

Easily accounted for by making the 'combat-effective' steps (per Turn, per Phase, per Segment) more expensive (+10, +15, +20 or some similar structure).

An alternative suggestion seen fairly often on the Boards is a REC advantage, rather than an adder. I'd rather see a staged advantage, for several reasons.

My main concern with making it an Advantage would be the potential interactions with Advantage Stacking and how cheap it can potentially be (as you note, at the +1/4 per step level it only costs 8 points to regen 1 Body per Turn) and how much cheaper it would be if applied to Endurance of Stun (it would be only 3.5 points to regenerate 1 Stun per Segment; 12 per Turn).

First, the more REC you have, the better this ability becomes. Second, in games where higher REC is common, the fixed price makes this more and more valuable.

Finally, I'd like to see the ability to have a recovery of 1 BOD per turn, as an example. An advantage can be taken on less than full REC, where an adder cannot (or at least grants no point savings for doing so). If we said +1/4 per time increment, the most common suggestion, that would be +2 for a turn, or 8 points for 1 BOD recovered per turn.

Additionally, however, I believe it should be possible to regenerate things other than BOD, and these constructs fail to allow for that. Healing does allow for that, so basing any Regen construct on Healing is, in my view, preferable. If we assume (big assumption, I know) that 1 BOD regen is reasonably priced at 8 - 10 points, then 1 CP regen should be reasonably priced at 4 - 5 points.

I see your points about partial-advantaged Recovery and wanting to Regen other stats. I think you can get the same effect by changing my original write-up to the following:

Regeneration: 2 points per 1 Body regenerated per Week; +5 points per step quicker on the Time Chart up to 1 per Turn. Example: Regenerate 5 Body per Turn costs 45 points.

You can then offer the following optional side-bar rules:
* Regen Any Stat - 1 point to regenerate 1 Active Point of a specific Characteristic
* Faster Regen - Allow characters to by the Regen period down to the per Segment level.
* More expensive Combat Regen - Double or triple the price for any step quicker than per 1 Minute.

[Hugh Neilson]

The main things I had in mind where those balance issues cause by the fact that Healing, by default, is 'Usable by Others', while Regen isn't. That causes Healing to have balance issues that Regen doesn't.

Regen has the same balance issue, except that all characters benefit from healing and only one from Regen. Is it better to have all PC's equally "unbalanced", or to have one that is unbalanced and the others balanced? I would suggest "balance" is very much "balance between PC's" and perhaps "balance between PC's and NPC's of significance".

Easily accounted for by making the 'combat-effective' steps (per Turn, per Phase, per Segment) more expensive (+10, +15, +20 or some similar structure).

True. My point was simply that the shorter period shifts are of greater value than the longer periods, where your proposal charged more for "month" to "week" than any other increment. I would suggest the shift from month to week should not be more expensive than week to day, and cheaper than Minute to Turn.

My main concern with making it an Advantage would be the potential interactions with Advantage Stacking and how cheap it can potentially be (as you note, at the +1/4 per step level it only costs 8 points to regen 1 Body per Turn) and how much cheaper it would be if applied to Endurance of Stun (it would be only 3.5 points to regenerate 1 Stun per Segment; 12 per Turn).

Actually, 8 points seems pretty rational to me compared to all prior incarnations of Regeneration. Was the system unbalanced from 1st to 4th, when it was 10 points per BOD? It seems you place a significant premium on the ability to speed recovery of BOD compared to the historical price for such an ability.

I'm unclear what other advantages are commonly placed on REC to justify the advantage stacking concern in this specific case. Certainly UBO must be considered, but if I'm OK with one character recovering all BOD loss in a short timeframe, should I really be a lot more worried about this extending to more of the characters?

As to Stun or END regeneration, you can only go to a per turn recovery. STUN and END are already recovered each turn. It does raise the question of whether the REC advantage allows BOD to be recovered when PS 12 is unavailable due to being below -10 STUN, but that's easily revised to "BOD recovers every PS 12", not "every PS 12 Recovery".

I see your points about partial-advantaged Recovery and wanting to Regen other stats. I think you can get the same effect by changing my original write-up to the following:

Regeneration: 2 points per 1 Body regenerated per Week; +5 points per step quicker on the Time Chart up to 1 per Turn. Example: Regenerate 5 Body per Turn costs 45 points.

You can then offer the following optional side-bar rules:
* Regen Any Stat - 1 point to regenerate 1 Active Point of a specific Characteristic
* Faster Regen - Allow characters to by the Regen period down to the per Segment level.
* More expensive Combat Regen - Double or triple the price for any step quicker than per 1 Minute.

Regen 1 BOD per turn costs 37 points. The question that arises is whether that is a reasonable price, or is overpriced. It's certainly much more expensive than prior versions, but that doesn't establish whether prior versions were appropriately priced. Historically, regeneration was either encountered:

- in supers games, as a substitute for rDEF (characters with regen tended to have lower defenses and used Regen as an alternative to avoiding taking BOD in the first place).

- in heroic games, for creatures that could regenerate - rarely or never for PC's, in the absence of the "regeneration UBO healing spell", which was not an issue until 5e capped Healing, at which time UBO Regen became a simple way of circumventing the healing cap.

Ultimately, whatever form Regen takes, it must balance against Healing.

3 BOD Regen, per turn, under your model costs 41 points. It's 24 under the "REC advantage" approach.

Buying healing, it would be 2d6 Standard Effect (6 points = 3 BOD), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Reuse 1 turn (+1 1/2) = 70 AP, Self Only (-1/2), extra time 1 turn (-1 1/4) = 25 points, very similar to the REC advantage.

Under the current model, IIRC, it's 3d6 Healing (1d6 = 1 BOD), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), = 60 AP, Self Only (-1/2), delayed effect 1 turn (-1 1/4) = 22 points, already discounted from both of the above.

Of course, your approach makes much higher per increment recoveries much less costly, but 1 or 2 much more costly. Low BOD regen then becomes much more effectively purchased using Healing, while high BOD is much more efficient using your construct. Now we need to prohibit using Healing to get a similar effect at a discount for small values.

[Vulcan]

My thoughts on Regen:

If Steve plans to stick to his rules of 'no going back to rules from older editions' (which I don't personally agree with as a rules design philosophy and I'll leave it at that), then we need a distinct way of handling Regen other than, 'I like how 4th Edition handled it better' (which I'm not saying any of the recent posters have done; but I've seen that stated several times before).

I'd like to see it made into a separate power of its own. That way, it's not in any way bound by whatever balance rules are in place for Healing. The ideas and balance issues between the two are different enough that I feel keeping them separate is justified. As for what the separate Regen power does:

5pts to reduce the time it takes for a character to heal Body (see H5ER pg 424) from Recovery per Month to Recovery per Week. This can be quicker by one step on the time chart for +5 points per step, to a limit of Recovery per Turn for 40 points.

Obviously the Base and Step costs can be adjusted for balance. My gut tells me 5 points is pretty close and 10 is probably too much. I could see 10 or even 15 for the Base and then +5 per step (making the fastest Regen 45 or 50 points).

Makes a certain amount of sense to me. Bypass all the inapropriate Healing mechanics entirely, make it a function of REC.

I would propose making the base cost equal to your REC. After all, with this version of Regeneration a higher REC makes it work even better and it should cost more to reflect that.

The GM could, at his option, make the base cost x2, x3, or more if he wants to discourage the use frivolously. Or just disallow it entirely.

[Vulcan]

Because otherwise, in any game where healing is relevant, characters come in two states: combat injury/Fully healed and rested. It's a bit irksome to run a game where after every period of activity, the entire group is fully refreshed within a minute or two, if even the bare minimum of healing is present.

STUN-wise, it already happens. Give a party a few turns to take recoveries and everyone's back to full anyway. And a GM is always free to require a -0 'Adjustment Power Cap' on Healing if he wants to limit it.

Thus "healing" would cost 5 points per d6 with the advantages Noncombat duration (+1), extended fade rate (1 year*, at +2½) and the limitation Only Restores To Starting Values (-½) for 22 points active, 15 real. It'd work like any other adjustment power, including the ability to be put in frameworks, adjust maximums, fade rates, etc.

*I chose one year, because it can be safely assumed that the character would have healed any damage taken normally in a year (even a Normal will heal 48 BOD in a year, 96 if he rests up), so that when the Aid fades there will be no effect. I also deliberately chose the advantage name "noncombat duration" instead of "extended duration" or some such to provide a pointer as to what extended fade rates are supopsed to be for.

First, what is 'Noncombat duration' or 'extended duration?' I can't find it in the books anywhere, and you don't give a description. What is it that is so nice it's worth a +1 advantage?

The fade rate sounds reasonable, but how much damage can an active party sustain over the course of a year? It might be more than you think in some games. By the time you get to this level, you might as well go for the gusto and say '5 points/25 years' It only costs 5 AP more.

But with this construct, few if any characters are going to have more than 3d6 (66 AP - and that's with a 5 AP/year fade). Is being able to heal 18 AP worth of any one thing worth that kind of investment outside of a Multipower?

All this construct seems to do is force players to use Multipowers for healer concepts.

It'd still be possible to make a character who could dish out massive amounts of healing,

Not in a game with any sort of AP limit.

...but it would require a significant investment in points: making it less easy to abuse. These changes would make long term drains and transfers more expensive (without changing their basic costs) which I see as plus. As a final bonus, the cost of Aid and Drain become balanced with Transfer, which if necessary could cease to exist as a single power and instead become an Aid+Drain Combo.

If the goal is simplification, we'd end up with fewer, better-balanced powers that worked by more consistent mechanisms. Steve, are you listening?

cheers, Mark

No argument with the goal.

[Vulcan]

I think the "noncombat duration", where the first increment costs more, is worth consideration.

Ah. That explains it.

Emphasis added. If that balance is needed for healing, it is also needed for regeneration. If it is not needed, then let's get rid of it.

Is it really needed? I don't think so, but opinions seem to vary.

[Hugh Neilson]

Is it really needed? I don't think so, but opinions seem to vary.

I'm not certain it is, or is not, needed. I can certainly see the dislike of "BOD is meaningless unless you die because you can rely on full healing once the combat is over".

The present system allows it to be bought off with the "decreased re-use" advantage. That allows GM's to restrict the extent to which they will allow the re-use to be reduced as they see fit.

I AM convinced, however, that the need - whether compelling or nonexistent, or anywhere in between - is equal for regeneration and healing.

[Talon]

Many of the proposals for Regeneration take into account the fact that BODY healing starts at a per-Month rate, and that any improvement on the Time Chart is worth points.

Unfortunately, Aid/Healing do not ever take this into account. Whether a Drain recovers 5/Turn or 5/Century, Healing will remove the damage just as quickly.

As long as this is the case, more granular fixes for Regeneration are going to be less efficient than Healing-based constructs. Ideally, Healing could be made to work in a similar manner.

[James Gillen]

My thoughts on Regen:

If Steve plans to stick to his rules of 'no going back to rules from older editions' (which I don't personally agree with as a rules design philosophy and I'll leave it at that), then we need a distinct way of handling Regen other than, 'I like how 4th Edition handled it better' (which I'm not saying any of the recent posters have done; but I've seen that stated several times before).

By me among several others. :D

jg

[Vulcan]

Okay. It looks like we have something of a sorta consensus.

Healing should retain the maximums like the adjustment power it is.

Regeneration, by definition, should not have a maximum.

Therefore, Regeneration should not be part of Healing i.e. Regen should be it's own power.

Any problems with this chain of logic? (Bear in mind, I'm not going into how Regen should be priced or by what mechanic Regen will work just yet.)

[Netzilla]

Regen has the same balance issue, except that all characters benefit from healing and only one from Regen. Is it better to have all PC's equally "unbalanced", or to have one that is unbalanced and the others balanced? I would suggest "balance" is very much "balance between PC's" and perhaps "balance between PC's and NPC's of significance".

That's a pretty significant exception in my mind. If you've got a group with a healer in it and anyone other than that healer gets dropped, then the healer can potentially bring them back into the fight. If the healer gets dropped, not only will the healer not be brought back into the fight, neither will anyone else who drops. Regen doesn't have that level of impact.

Balancing the ability to bring anyone back into the fight isn't the same as balancing the ability to bring only yourself back into the fight. Otherwise, why isn't Recovery subject to the same balance rulings as Healing? Regen is closer to Recovery in my mind than Healing.

True. My point was simply that the shorter period shifts are of greater value than the longer periods, where your proposal charged more for "month" to "week" than any other increment. I would suggest the shift from month to week should not be more expensive than week to day, and cheaper than Minute to Turn.

Perhaps. If you look at the initial write-up I gave, however, that wasn't true. It was 5 points per step regardless of which step it was. I threw in the idea of charging more for the initial purchase because, as I wrote at the time, "the Base and Step costs can be adjusted for balance." The numbers I threw out there were simply first-guess ideas and I had no illusions that they were likely to be the correct costs. I was more interested in getting the idea out there than I was in hard numbers.

Actually, 8 points seems pretty rational to me compared to all prior incarnations of Regeneration. Was the system unbalanced from 1st to 4th, when it was 10 points per BOD? It seems you place a significant premium on the ability to speed recovery of BOD compared to the historical price for such an ability.

I do feel that 4th Edition's 10 per Body per Turn was a bit too cheap. That doesn't mean that I feel 40 or 45 points is correct. Don't get too hung up on the numbers because the numbers are easily adjusted. It's the concept of separating Regen from Healing (allowing us to balance both as befits their unique cases) and paying separate amounts for how much is healed as well as the time frame in which it is healed.

I'm unclear what other advantages are commonly placed on REC to justify the advantage stacking concern in this specific case. Certainly UBO must be considered, but if I'm OK with one character recovering all BOD loss in a short timeframe, should I really be a lot more worried about this extending to more of the characters?

I would be. The ability to bring anyone back into a fight is obviously much more flexible. Especially if it can be done to multiple people at the same time.

As to Stun or END regeneration, you can only go to a per turn recovery. STUN and END are already recovered each turn. It does raise the question of whether the REC advantage allows BOD to be recovered when PS 12 is unavailable due to being below -10 STUN, but that's easily revised to "BOD recovers every PS 12", not "every PS 12 Recovery".

Perhaps I'm confused here. When you were talking about an Advantage, I thought you were talking about placing that Advantage on the thing you wanted to Regenerate. So, if you want Strength to Regen at the per Turn rate, you'd buy the Advantage on Strength. I also thought you were interested in having the ability to Regen at rates faster than per Turn, though perhaps I'm confusing you with another poster. Regardless, that's where my numbers were coming from regarding Stun and END.

Regen 1 BOD per turn costs 37 points. The question that arises is whether that is a reasonable price, or is overpriced. It's certainly much more expensive than prior versions, but that doesn't establish whether prior versions were appropriately priced.

Like I wrote, "the Base and Step costs can be adjusted for balance." I was not trying to imply that I thought 37 or 45 or 112 was the right cost to Regen 1 Body per Turn. If we decided that the correct cost was somewhere between 25 and 30 points, that's easily achieved by setting the correct Cost per Step. Three points per Step would have 1 Body per Turn Regen costing: 2 (1 Body) + 3 * 8 (steps) = 26 points. Putting it at 2 points per Step would have it costing 18 points.

Like I wrote above, the important part is separating Regen from Healing so that we can:
* Balance each power according to their unique needs
* Avoid overly complex builds for conceptually simple powers
* Separate the cost of the amount Regenerated from the time it takes.
* Other factors I'm too tired to think of right before going to bed :p


Historically, regeneration was either encountered:

- in supers games, as a substitute for rDEF (characters with regen tended to have lower defenses and used Regen as an alternative to avoiding taking BOD in the first place).

- in heroic games, for creatures that could regenerate - rarely or never for PC's, in the absence of the "regeneration UBO healing spell", which was not an issue until 5e capped Healing, at which time UBO Regen became a simple way of circumventing the healing cap.

Ultimately, whatever form Regen takes, it must balance against Healing.

Sure. Regen shouldn't be more expensive than healing, but that's again getting away from the concept and focusing on the points, which can be adjusted once we've got buy-off on the concept in the first place. We can't really discuss what something is worth until we're all on the same page regarding what that thing we're pricing is.

<snip cost examples>


Of course, your approach makes much higher per increment recoveries much less costly, but 1 or 2 much more costly. Low BOD regen then becomes much more effectively purchased using Healing, while high BOD is much more efficient using your construct. Now we need to prohibit using Healing to get a similar effect at a discount for small values.

Well, in any situation in which you separate out Healing and Regen, it should either be impossible to build one with the other (for example, you can't use Energy Blast to build an RKA and vice-versa) or you need to make sure that if such is allowed, there's no cost advantage to do so (unlike the Armor vs Force Field imbalance we have currently). However, I'd rather get a concept nailed down before I start worrying too much about the specifics of cost.

[Markdoc]

STUN-wise, it already happens. Give a party a few turns to take recoveries and everyone's back to full anyway. And a GM is always free to require a -0 'Adjustment Power Cap' on Healing if he wants to limit it.

But STUN isn't the issue - as you note, it's always been like that and goes up and down in combat time anyway. BOD doesn't and it's BOD in particular that's at issue when healing is discussed.

First, what is 'Noncombat duration' or 'extended duration?' I can't find it in the books anywhere, and you don't give a description. What is it that is so nice it's worth a +1 advantage?

It's a new suggested advantage, obviously, and the +1 calculation was based off the facts that a) buffs that last a long time are very, very much more useful than those that evaporate in a short period of time and
b) the cost of Aid was doubled (ie, increased by +1) because of the earlier abuse of Aid buffs with extended durations.
Hence the advantage was conceived as a way of decreasing the cost of Aid back to the point where it can be useful as a short-term buff (and where it is balanced with Drain and Transfer), while avoiding the abuse that occurred in the past.

The fade rate sounds reasonable, but how much damage can an active party sustain over the course of a year? It might be more than you think in some games. By the time you get to this level, you might as well go for the gusto and say '5 points/25 years' It only costs 5 AP more.

Don't think I didn't consider it :) But in truth, without magical healing, but decent care and a bit of rest, your usual adventurer-type will heal near-lethal damage in a month or so, so pushing it further out seemed unwarranted. Still, it was a suggestion - maybe a longer period would be safer. My own feeling was that if the time period is long enough that it is reasonable, given that few PCs spend all of them time in combat and most games include a reasonable amout of downtime. The added benefit/cost of going further is minimal, so I think it's fair to call it a wash, but maybe I'm being over-optimistic.

But with this construct, few if any characters are going to have more than 3d6 (66 AP - and that's with a 5 AP/year fade). Is being able to heal 18 AP worth of any one thing worth that kind of investment outside of a Multipower?

All this construct seems to do is force players to use Multipowers for healer concepts.

Not really. I've used this construct in my FH games in the past because of the problems with healing as written, and it's certainly seen as worthwhile by players, even outside frameworks. So much so, that they have bough it, for the following reasons.
1. By adjusting Aid/healing to work the same as other adjustment powers, you can do the same things with it, such as increasing the maximum. You no longer need to limit it to "the maximum you can roll on the dice".
2. The price can readily be dropped by stacking on the sort of limitations common in heroic level games. In games where players often take BOD, and the option of resting it out in hospital is not an option, healing can often be lifesaver, even if you invest 10 or 15 real points.
3. Even if you just go for as many dice as you can, that 18 AP can be applied repeatedly over the course of an adventure and to multiple recipients. If it's applied to a resource like BOD, which is lost and not easily replenished, then yes, it's very much worth it. In other cases, perhaps not so much. Though being able to augment the STR of a whole unit of soldiers - for a year - is also a very powerful ability in a fantasy setting.

Not in a game with any sort of AP limit.

That's possible - though you are forgetting that Aid can have it's maximum bought up, so even 1d6 with an increased maximum can be very valuable. Still, I've no particular interest in or affection for AP limits, so I admit that's not something I considered.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Okay. It looks like we have something of a sorta consensus.

Healing should retain the maximums like the adjustment power it is.

Regeneration, by definition, should not have a maximum.

Therefore, Regeneration should not be part of Healing i.e. Regen should be it's own power.

Any problems with this chain of logic? (Bear in mind, I'm not going into how Regen should be priced or by what mechanic Regen will work just yet.)

I'd agree with that chain of logic.

I'd add that since healing doesn't really work like any of the other adjustment powers, I'd favour either moving it back into line with them (as I suggested above) or exploring a totally new mechanism for healing too.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

That's a pretty significant exception in my mind. If you've got a group with a healer in it and anyone other than that healer gets dropped, then the healer can potentially bring them back into the fight. If the healer gets dropped, not only will the healer not be brought back into the fight, neither will anyone else who drops. Regen doesn't have that level of impact.

I'm looking at Regen as "healing BOD only". STUN tends to take characters out of combat more than BOD, in my experience. The issue with BOD is that characters gradually accumulate wounds (absent a lucky shot or very powerful opponent), being whittled down over a series of combats, or one large combat. If one character regenerates and recovers all his BOD, he's ready to go, and the rest of the characters are badly injured. If they have unlimited healing, they're all ready to go.

Balancing the ability to bring anyone back into the fight isn't the same as balancing the ability to bring only yourself back into the fight. Otherwise, why isn't Recovery subject to the same balance rulings as Healing? Regen is closer to Recovery in my mind than Healing.

You're looking at this from a perspective of balancing the PC's against their adversaries, which is important. I'm looking at balancing the PC's against each other, which is ALSO important. Is it fair to the other players, whose characters must limp along at reduced BOD, that one character gets to recover all his BOD in a matter of a minute? Ultimately, if Regen isn't balanced in this fashion, it becomes a power that everyone wants. Should it be that common?

Maybe it should - not the kind of regeneration where we watch in awe as the character's wounds knit shut, but at 1 point per 20 minutes or per hour, we get the trope common to many genres that the grievously wounded hero is nonetheless ready to go back into combat after a good night's sleep. But a trope such as that would likely be shared by most or all PC's, not be a schtick of only one.

I do feel that 4th Edition's 10 per Body per Turn was a bit too cheap. That doesn't mean that I feel 40 or 45 points is correct. Don't get too hung up on the numbers because the numbers are easily adjusted. It's the concept of separating Regen from Healing (allowing us to balance both as befits their unique cases) and paying separate amounts for how much is healed as well as the time frame in which it is healed.

The manner of separation, including the cost, are important issues. From a philosophical perspective, I dislike:

- the link to Recovery through an adder (buying up REC buys up this ability without an extra cost for this ability)

- the link of the ability to BOD only - as STUN and END already recover 1/turn, this cannot be used to "regenerate" those stats (not a biggie - they recover fast anyway) and, as other attributes do not use REC to recover, this system cannot "regenerate" them either. Many regenerators, at a minimum, recover COM lost to scarring injuries.

- the lack of a compelling need, in my mind, for a completely separate Regen mechanic. There are two approaches now - natural healing (recovery) and accelerated healing (the Healing power). I like the concept of linking Regen to Healing, although I perceive significant issues in the current implementation. Regen as a talent built from healing seems quite workable to me, at least as workable as combat luck built from armour.

Perhaps I'm confused here. When you were talking about an Advantage, I thought you were talking about placing that Advantage on the thing you wanted to Regenerate. So, if you want Strength to Regen at the per Turn rate, you'd buy the Advantage on Strength. I also thought you were interested in having the ability to Regen at rates faster than per Turn, though perhaps I'm confusing you with another poster. Regardless, that's where my numbers were coming from regarding Stun and END.

I wasn't dealing with Stun or END, and the proposal I was describing proposed an advantage on REC. The possibility of an advantage on the specific stat that Regenerates had not occurred to me, but that's certainly another possibility. All damage - drains, transfers, STUN, END, BOD - recovers over time increments. Perhaps an advantage paid on each stat that allows it to recover the number of points on which the advantage is paid one time increment faster for every +1/4 advantage would merit consideration.

I concur there is a serious balance issue with STUN, END or anything else recovering more frequently than PS 12, so perhaps the advantage provides the restriction that the recovery "stops" a 1/turn frequency. So if I buy a +1 advantage on 5 STUN, four time increments, a Drain that would normally recover 5 points per turn, or ordinary STUN damage, are unaffected. However, if I've been hit with a Stun Drain that recovers per day, I move that four steps down the chart and recover 5 points every 5 minutes. And if I'm KO'd to -25 (recovery per minute), my Advantage allows me to recover every turn instead.

Perhaps, for STUN, this advantage should add 10 points' negative STUN to the REC chart for each stage, rather than dealing in time increments, so this character would not hit GM's Option until -80 STUN instead of the usual -30. Sure, he's one character that's annoyingly hard to put down, but you tell me it's not that big a deal if only one character can recover quickly.

Like I wrote, "the Base and Step costs can be adjusted for balance." I was not trying to imply that I thought 37 or 45 or 112 was the right cost to Regen 1 Body per Turn. If we decided that the correct cost was somewhere between 25 and 30 points, that's easily achieved by setting the correct Cost per Step. Three points per Step would have 1 Body per Turn Regen costing: 2 (1 Body) + 3 * 8 (steps) = 26 points. Putting it at 2 points per Step would have it costing 18 points.

So what is the right price, for 1 BOD, 3 BOD or 10 BOD? Until we have some idea of a reasonable price, we don't really have a construct, do we?

Like I wrote above, the important part is separating Regen from Healing so that we can:
* Balance each power according to their unique needs
* Avoid overly complex builds for conceptually simple powers
* Separate the cost of the amount Regenerated from the time it takes.
* Other factors I'm too tired to think of right before going to bed :p

I'm not convinced separating regen from healing, whether linked to Recovery or otherwise, is the best approach. It would take a balanced (including cost-balanced) approach to convince me. I do think that Self Only is undervalued as a limitation on both Healing and Aid at the present -1/2.

Any Regen construct needs to be cost-balanced against doing the same thing with Healing. Under 5e, I would agree with separating Regen from Healing, because the ability to remove the reuse time was not present. With decreased re-use time now in 5er, and presumably rolling forward to 6e, Regen can be constructed with no need for an optional rule. Why have another power when a sample build or Talent will do fine?

Sure. Regen shouldn't be more expensive than healing, but that's again getting away from the concept and focusing on the points, which can be adjusted once we've got buy-off on the concept in the first place. We can't really discuss what something is worth until we're all on the same page regarding what that thing we're pricing is.

If you can't balance the points, the concept will not work. The ability to construct the same ability another way provides a benchmark for the cost of this ability. To me, if there is a belief the current cost is inappropriate (I'm not convinced it is), then correcting that cost is a superior approach to creating a completely separate mechanic, then invoking the mantra "there are two ways to do it; you must choose the most costly".

Note that, to me, the "current cost" should be 2/3d6 Healing, reduced re-use (+1.5; 1 turn), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), extra Time (one turn; -1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2) 23 AP, 8 RP (closer to 8.5 per increment, which could matter as we buy up more BOD, unless we make this an 8 point per increment Talent). If that cost is viewed as inappropriate, then something in the formula should change, because one of those costs must also be inappropriate.

To the concept vs cost issue, what is left to nail down the concept? OK, let's look at some conceptual issues:

- should the increment reduction be an adder (eg. the 5 points per level you suggest) or an advantage (eg. +1/4 on the cost of the amount of regeneration)?

- should it be possible to use this construct on abilities other than BOD, or is it restricted to BOD?

- should the base ability to be regenerated be paid for again (your 2 CP per BOD base cost), or is it subsumed in already having the ability?

- should the advantage/adder be on the ability to be regenerated, on Recovery or on some other ability?

- should it be possible to expand the scope of Regeneration to multiple abilities using an advantage or adder (eg. "any one ability" or "all abilities reduced")?

- should it be possible to regenerate unusual damage forms (eg. Transform, segments flashed, mental power effects, being STUNNED)

- should it be possible to use Regeneration to recover from KO outside the usual chart for negative STUN? How?

- how fast should it be possible to Regenerate? eg. is the limit per turn; could one regenerate per phase or per segment (with the relevant impact on STUN and END)?

[Vulcan]

Rather than dispute the whole post, I'll just stick to the meat of it. My opinions vary somewhat from Hugh's in the details, but not enough that I want to further lengthen that post!;)

To the concept vs cost issue, what is left to nail down the concept? OK, let's look at some conceptual issues:

- should the increment reduction be an adder (eg. the 5 points per level you suggest) or an advantage (eg. +1/4 on the cost of the amount of regeneration)?

There are pluses and minuses to both ways, which should probably be related to exactly how we scale the base cost.

- should it be possible to use this construct on abilities other than BOD, or is it restricted to BOD?

Three words that should make my opinion clear. "Regenerate to END."

Another word. NO.

- should the base ability to be regenerated be paid for again (your 2 CP per BOD base cost), or is it subsumed in already having the ability?

I favor the base cost of Regeneration being equal to your REC - but then, I favor linking Regeneration to REC.

- should the advantage/adder be on the ability to be regenerated, on Recovery or on some other ability?

Mechanics-wise, REC is the most similar to the genre examples of Regenertation. It has unlimited effect. No matter how much STUN/END/BODY you have, eventualy REC will replenish them all.

Healing, on the other hand, have limits as to how much they will replenish.

REC is automatic. Healing/Aid takes actions or advantages to do so.

It just makes sense to me. Separate Regen from Healing, and make it it's own power again. Link it to REC, and away we go.

- should it be possible to expand the scope of Regeneration to multiple abilities using an advantage or adder (eg. "any one ability" or "all abilities reduced")?

No, because of the 'Regenerate to END' construct mentioned above.

And if you can't do that with a REC-based Regen, why can you Regen anything else? Use Healing, with all it's limitations; that should be better balanced.

- should it be possible to regenerate unusual damage forms (eg. Transform, segments flashed, mental power effects, being STUNNED)

Transform has been healed back by Regen since 4th, I would say yes - depending on FX. Transform you to missing an arm? Yes, Regen would heal that. You to a frog? No, Regen would not heal that (but you'd be a regenerating frog:D). Perhaps with an adder...

Flash? Maybe. Someone more interested will have to look into it, it doesn't really bug me either way.

But not vs. mental effects or vs. being stunned. Mental effects are already very finely imbalanced now (going from completely ineffective to overwhelmingly powerful in just a couple dice). Throwing another variable just upsets things.

And besides, even Wolvie (the poster-child for Regeneration) gets stunned. With that in genere, Regeneration vs. 'being stunned' seems kinda silly. Just my opinion, though.

- should it be possible to use Regeneration to recover from KO outside the usual chart for negative STUN? How?

That can be handled with other mechanics. Two come to mind:

Healing, Trigger (when unconcious) will go off upon your being knocked out, and eventually either wake you back up or hit it's maximum - hopefully bringing you back to the point where you'll take recoveries more often;

Extra STUN, only to determine frequency of recoveries while unconcious (-1.5 or so).

There are likely others.

- how fast should it be possible to Regenerate? eg. is the limit per turn; could one regenerate per phase or per segment (with the relevant impact on STUN and END)?

If you link REC and Regeneration, per Turn should be plenty. Even a low REC (8ish) will still heal a BODY per phase, and possibly several (if the GM pro-rates it over the course of the turn). And someone with a high REC (say, 30) would likey heal a BODY per phase even when bought at the per minute level.

In light of that, if we link Regen to REC, then the maximum rate should probably be per minute, and the GM should be strongly encouraged to pro-rate the amount.

A GM could then allow, if he so desired, the 'per turn' level. Just so he realizes what he's getting into.

NOTE: The following examples assume the base cost for Regen is equal to the character's REC.

As to the starting level... I think per 5 hours might be just about right, with levels up and down the time chart being a 1/4 modifier. Thus, a 30 REC Regenerator bought up to the minute pays 52 points - a large amount, to be sure, but he's getting a large benefit. The 4 REC normal who just happens to regenerate pays 4 points to be fully healed from a near-fatal wreck in about a day. I could go along with changing that to per day (so the high-end pays 60 points and the normal gets up in 4 days), but the cost starts getting quite expensive for the per-minute level at anything beyond that.

If we use a flat 5-point adder, then per week is the place to start. The normal pays 9 to 14 points (per day or per 5 hours), and the high-end per turn example pays 50 points.

Hmm. Perhaps the adder is the way to go after all.

[Talon]

- should it be possible to use this construct on abilities other than BOD, or is it restricted to BOD?

Ideally a mechanic for Regeneration, if the cost was matched up with Healing, should be applicable to other effects as well. (BODY recovery is enough of a special case that it wouldn't be the worst thing to have a special case power for it, but if possible it would be nice to avoid.)

- should the base ability to be regenerated be paid for again (your 2 CP per BOD base cost), or is it subsumed in already having the ability?

It should be subsumed. Think of BODY damage as a Drain that recovers per Month (yeah, it's "REC" instead of "5" per month, but close enough); how do you improve that rate?

- should the advantage/adder be on the ability to be regenerated, on Recovery or on some other ability?

I think people would find it counter-intuitive to be anything other than a separate ability, so the Advantage / Adder should be on an Adjustment power.

- should it be possible to expand the scope of Regeneration to multiple abilities using an advantage or adder (eg. "any one ability" or "all abilities reduced")?

See above; it should, although this should fall out of it being an Adjustment Power.

- should it be possible to regenerate unusual damage forms (eg. Transform, segments flashed, mental power effects, being STUNNED)

Transform is BODY damage so that makes sense; other stuff seems a bit of a reach.

- should it be possible to use Regeneration to recover from KO outside the usual chart for negative STUN? How?

If it were an Adjustment power, how this works would be self-evident (whether GMs would allow it at per-Phase rates would be a separate issue).

- how fast should it be possible to Regenerate? eg. is the limit per turn; could one regenerate per phase or per segment (with the relevant impact on STUN and END)?

I think that per Phase is as fast as it should get, although per Phase STUN and END Regeneration is a big balance no-no. (Doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible.)

[BobGreenwade]

Okay. It looks like we have something of a sorta consensus.

Healing should retain the maximums like the adjustment power it is.

Regeneration, by definition, should not have a maximum.

Therefore, Regeneration should not be part of Healing i.e. Regen should be it's own power.

Any problems with this chain of logic? (Bear in mind, I'm not going into how Regen should be priced or by what mechanic Regen will work just yet.)I agree with this logic, and I can see other reasons to make Regeneration a separate Power, such as how Extra Time is handled differently.

That said, I do think the existing mechanics for Regeneration work well enough for most purposes, or at least close to it, so the write-up in the end could still be fairly close to the existing text.

On the other hand, I wouldn't complain if something different were done, depending on what that "something different" was. For example, if Regeneration was built as a fixed cost per step down the Time Chart that a character recovers BODY (effectively, an Adder for REC), I think that would make a lot of sense.

I think we could also benefit from having the Can Heal Limbs and Resurrection Adders applicable directly to REC, even without the accelerated healing. This could simulate someone who heals at the normal rate, but simply regrows limbs and/or comes back to life in the process.

And speaking of Can Heal Limbs, I also think that different forms of the Adder could be included, so that a character who only grows back actual limbs is different from one who can also heal back eyes, kidneys, nerve damage, and the like.

[PhilFleischmann]

Something I mentioned on the A-E thread, with regard to Adjustment Powers (like Healing, which is in the F-K range*) is that the reduced fade rate costs should be increased for the first one or two steps down the time chart. I'd say +1/2 for fade 5/minute, +1 for 5/5 min, and +1/4 for each step beyond that.

And also the low cost of the advantage to add to multiple abilities is a problem IMO. How 'bout a flat +1/2 for each additional ability adjusted. So Aid two things is a +1/2, Aid three things is +1, Aid four things is +1.5 etc. shouldn't get doubled utility for each flat +X or Advantage. In ideal circumstances (where the adjusting additional abilities simultaneously is useful), each additional ability adjusted increases the power/utility by 100%. It shouldn't be too much to ask that this cost a mere 50% more.

Or you can use to splitting method, where the Adjustment points of effect are split between some number of abilities in some fixed proportion. IIRC, this is the way it was in 4th edition. EX:

60 points for 6d6 Healing - Half goes to BODY, 1/4 goes to STUN, and 1/4 to END. So if you roll 24 pips of effect,the target heals 6 BODY, 6 STUN, and 12 END.

*And it would be much more convenient if these threads were arranged by power type, rather than alphabetical order.

[James Gillen]

*And it would be much more convenient if these threads were arranged by power type, rather than alphabetical order.

You may want to ask Steve if we can create an "Adjustment Powers Thread" or something like that. Chris already had a thread about his approach to Mental Powers.

jg

EDIT: Never mind, I see Steve already commented on that.
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1653720#post1653720

[Xotl]

Posting solely to state how much I like Klaus' Lightning Speed idea from post 380:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1603754&postcount=380

[CTaylor]

In terms of just rule building, Lightning Speed works better than just Regeneration. It allows you to build all sorts of powers (instant change) rather than just healing faster. The more narrow and restricted in concept and special effect a new power is, the less I like it. The more new nifty things you can conceive of and new possibilities a power presents, the better it is.

[Klaus Mogensen]

There's more discussion of the Lightning Speed idea (including its use for Regeneration) in a thread in the Rules section: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67301

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

On the combat issues thread, someone just suggested making killing an advantage (+1 was the one proposed; I think +1/2 might be more appropriate but that's just me) on normal attacks. The mechanic becomes that the BODY of the attack is only stopped by resistant defenses, although the STUN is affected as normal. (There was also a proposal to have the 'killing' advantage do twice as much BODY, which would be approriate for a +1.)

It certainly stops the 'killing attack is better at doing STUN' issue. It also means that damage is rolled the same way for all attacks, a not-insignificant advantage as well.

But is it too much, or too little?

[Talon]

Math has been done (by Netzilla). The solution I like best, which looked to balance based on the numbers (which is not the same as "based on playtesting"), is have it be a +1/4 Advantage and grant a BODY bonus equal to 1/2 DC (so a 6d6 EB with the Advantage becomes 6d6 + 3 BODY killing damage).

I think that using the same damage mechanic (roll STUN, check the pips for BODY) for killing and normal damage is the important thing to do in 6th Edition.

[The Main Man]

On the combat issues thread, someone just suggested making killing an advantage (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1662579#post1662579)(+1 was the one proposed; I think +1/2 might be more appropriate but that's just me) on normal attacks. The mechanic becomes that the BODY of the attack is only stopped by resistant defenses, although the STUN is affected as normal. (There was also a proposal to have the 'killing' advantage do twice as much BODY, which would be approriate for a +1.)

It certainly stops the 'killing attack is better at doing STUN' issue. It also means that damage is rolled the same way for all attacks, a not-insignificant advantage as well.

But is it too much, or too little?

Edited for link.

Well, a +3/4 advantage might suffice because it is both the average between the two proposed values and it it is well in line with the current AVLD rules.

While the 2xBODY idea has pretty much been quelled, I do like the idea of "Killing Damage" being an Optional Maneuver and the Power Advantage allows for it to be automatically assumed just like Autofire assigns Rapid Fire/Sweep as a Power Advantage.

[The Main Man]

Math has been done (by Netzilla). The solution I like best, which looked to balance based on the numbers (which is not the same as "based on playtesting"), is have it be a +1/4 Advantage and grant a BODY bonus equal to 1/2 DC (so a 6d6 EB with the Advantage becomes 6d6 + 3 BODY killing damage).

I think that using the same damage mechanic (roll STUN, check the pips for BODY) for killing and normal damage is the important thing to do in 6th Edition.

That idea is intriguing but I remember a similar Power Advantage in UEP that involved STUN damage for the same value.

Somehow I have been lead to believe that BODY is more valuable than STUN.

2x the value in fact.

2x 1/4 = 1/2; Like Vulcan said.

Hrm...
http://tonymooreillustration.com/v-web/gallery/albums/sketchbook/rorschach.jpg

[Hugh Neilson]

Math has been done (by Netzilla). The solution I like best, which looked to balance based on the numbers (which is not the same as "based on playtesting"), is have it be a +1/4 Advantage and grant a BODY bonus equal to 1/2 DC (so a 6d6 EB with the Advantage becomes 6d6 + 3 BODY killing damage).I think that using the same damage mechanic (roll STUN, check the pips for BODY) for killing and normal damage is the important thing to do in 6th Edition.With a 50% bonus to BOD, how does KA stack up against Entangle and Force Wall?At +1/2, a 12d6 normal attack averages 12 BOD and an 8d6 KA averages the same 12 BOD.* At +1/4, that KA is a bit under 10d6, which would average 15 BOD, pretty close to the present KA.* 50 AP would be 10d6 normal or 8d6 killing at 12 BOD, so we add 10% to the BOD roll.By the wa, the same issue is also on General Rules Issues.I think at +1/2, and assuming no change to the typical frequency and level of rDEF, this would only be workable if KA's were reduced only by rDEF for both STUN and BOD.

[Vulcan]

Killing STUN and BODY both vs rDEF? I can get behind that, it simplifies things significantly without affecting playability.

Any of our house mathemeticians want to take a crack at this one?

[Hugh Neilson]

EDIT: I didn't include the "half the dice BOD enhancement" in the KA's. I've fixed this below:

Again looking at 60 AP, and let's say Standard Super with 20/10 DEF:

at +1/2, I get a 12d6 EB, 42 STUN and 12 BOD, 22 STUN inflicted;
or an 8d6 KA, 28 STUN, 8+4 = 12 BOD, 18 STUN and 2 BOD inflicted.

The KA does slightly less STUN and a bit of BOD against a standard Super. Seems reasonably balanced.

Drop defenses to 10/5. Now the normal attack achieves 32 and 2, while the KA achieves 23 and 7. Much less STUN, but quite lethal. Seems reasonable.

Bump defenses to 30/15 and the normal attack does 12 STUN while the KA does 3. That low DEF lethality is offset with high DEF ineffectiveness. Again, seems fair.

At +1/4, that KA is, say 9 1/2 d6, so average 9.5 + 4.75 = 14.25 BOD and 30.5 STUN, so inflicts 4.25 BOD and 20.5 STUN on average. This seems a bit too good - very little average STUN lost and considerable BOD gets through.

10/5 defenses: 25.5 STUN and 9.25 BOD gets through - far too lethal.
30/15 defenses: 15.5 STUN (more than the normal attack) and just barely no BOD.

CONCLUSION: The +1/2 advantage to convert the attack to one that does 1 extra BOD per 2d6 and acts only against rDEF seems like a reasonable approach based on the standard defenses provided in the rule book.

How about Standard Heroic with 3-8 DC (say 6) and 10/5 defenses?

Well, I'm not going to math it out - everything is exactly half, so +1/2 should still be our big winner.

This approach means KA's will do some BOD to standard characters, but less STUN, so it becomes an attack that is more effective at killing and less effective at knocking out. If that's the objective, this approach seems to do it. And it does so without making entangles, force walles, etc. ineffectual - the BOD against them from a KA has actually declined, from an average roll of 14 under the current system to 12 under the system proposed. So the KA is also made a bit more lethal, but a bit less effective at destruction of property.

[The Main Man]

But then again they didn't in the first place.

[Netzilla]

Since my posts on Killing Attack analysis have been referenced, here's the links to the relevant posts so everyone can see the math for themselves:

First up, is a compairson of the Stun Lotto, Hit Locations, Steve Longs 1d3 Stun Lotto, +1/2 AVLD and my original +1/4 Advantage (which can be ignored as it was later changed):
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1553378#post1553378

I felt that the +1/2 AVLD nerfed KA way too much unless you also increase the cost of Resistant Defenses.

Next is the revised version of my +1/4 KA Advantage and a comparison between it's BOD totals versus those of the traditional Killing Attack:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566275#post1566275

Running the new +1/4 KA Advantage through the same analysis done in the first link above:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566283#post1566283

Making those comparisons at the Superheroic level:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566285#post1566285

An analysis of the average BODY gain vs STUN loss of traditional Killing Attacks and my +1/4 Advantage:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566658#post1566658
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1567658#post1567658

Finally, here's an analysis for a couple proposals that Hugh made me aware of that I also think warrant serious consideration:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1656380#post1656380

[Netzilla]

Again looking at 60 AP, and let's say Standard Super with 20/10 DEF:

at +1/2, I get a 12d6 EB, 42 STUN and 12 BOD, 22 STUN inflicted;
or an 8d6 KA, 28 STUN, 8 BOD, 18 STUN and 0 BOD inflicted.

The KA is slightly less effective against a standard Super. Seems OK

At +1/4, that KA is, say 9 1/2 d6, so average 9.5 BOD and 30.5 STUN, so inflicts 0 BOD and 20.5 STUN on average. This seems a bit too good - very little average STUN lost and a decent chance of getting BOD through.

How about Standard Heroic with 3-8 DC (say 6) and 10/5 defenses?

Well, I'm not going to math it out - everything is exactly half, so +1/2 should still be our big winner.

Note that PC's won't take BOD very often. [And, like The Main Man notes below, that's not a change from the status quo.]

One other thing to consider on this is that making Killing Attacks a +1/2 AVLD is that it will make Normal Attacks the more effective method of destroying vehicles, walls, entangles and so forth.

[Talon]

(Posted in General Rules and F-K; seems to me F-K is the better place for discussion.)

I don't like the idea of making KAs competely AVLD -- in fact, there's been a lot of discussion about going the other way and having non-resistant DEF always work against the STUN of a KA. If you make it an AVLD, then resistant defenses become even more necessary than they are now.

[CTaylor]

I trust Mr Long won't pay much attention to that particular thrust of the discussion. People can feel free to make their own game that changes critical and long-standing features of Hero Games if they want.

[Hugh Neilson]

I trust Mr Long won't pay much attention to that particular thrust of the discussion. People can feel free to make their own game that changes critical and long-standing features of Hero Games if they want.

Absent a willingness to consider changes to "critical and long-standing features of Hero Games", there is no point whatsoever to a 6e, in my opinion. Minor tinkering can be handled in supplements and FAQ's. If Hero wants people to shell out the bucks for a brand-new edition, it needs to be sufficiently different, and improved, to justify that investment.

[CTaylor]

So you didn't buy 4th or 5th editions then? Because they didn't make huge changes and sweeping alterations to core portions of the long-standing rules?

[Hugh Neilson]

So you didn't buy 4th or 5th editions then? Because they didn't make huge changes and sweeping alterations to core portions of the long-standing rules?

In my view, 4th made some fairly substantive changes. Prior to 4e, all of the systems were separate and independent. Abilities that existed in Fantasy Hero (Aid, Healing) did not exist in Champions, for example. Bringing them together technically makes 4e the 1st edition of unified Hero rules.

And I played 2e right through 3e.

If there is no need for material changes, then it is my opinion there is no need for 6th edition. Whether I like the changes will determine whether I will switch to 6e. If the changes are minor, however, I can easily switch without the need to buy 6e.

Hero needs to motivate gamers to buy the 6e rulebook. Minor tinkering is less likely to bring buyers than major changes. I would suggest that many Board members who note they have 5e, not 5er, have made that decision because of the lack of substantive change between the two editions.

Further, the fact that "it's always been that way" is not a reason to leave it that way. It is, in my view a reason to leave it that way if a change will not improve it. While I have not experienced the problem in my games, it's clear many long-time Hero gamers have had problems with killing attacks, particularly the Stun Multiple. As such, I see a reason to make that change. I also see approaches to doing so that don't cause me to fear for the balance and enjoyment of my games, so that removes my motivation to oppose such a change.

[I haven't seen that approach to eliminating figured characteristics, so I don't support that - but a well-designed system for their elimination could certainly move me to that side as well.]

But if the answer, on reviewing the 5er rules, is "most everything is fine as it is; let's just do a rewrite with some minor tinkering", then my answer would be "then 6e is not worth undertaking at this time". That wouldn't bother me at all, frankly. There may be some issues with 5e, but not enough that I think it cries out for a new edition.

[CTaylor]

So what you're saying is that you bought the previous editions without changing core rules and substantive alterations to long-standing hero basics, but demand it for the next edition? Why the change?

[Vulcan]

I don't know about anyone else, but I bought 5E mostly because my copy of 4E was falling apart. :rolleyes:

[CTaylor]

Well that's good enough reason :) I don't mean that as an insult I'm just confused by the insistence (by Steve Long as well as posters here) that 6th edition has to be a huge change or it's not worth it, when no previous editions have been held to that standard and have been ever bigger successes and sellers.

[Talon]

I bought 5th Edition because I had the pocket change, and to support Steve taking over and revitalizing the game. I was not happy with the level of change, so am trying to make sure there is more this time. (Not change for its own sake, but change for the better.)

In the 15+ years since a big Hero change, a lot of other games have come along quite a bit. D&D 3rd Edition showed how you could make big changes to a game without alienating the fan base (and, IMO, improve the game). 3.5 showed how you could mess it up. :)

I think 6th Edition should change a lot because there is a lot of room for improvement. It's possible to make a more consistent, easier to learn game without sacrificing the detail that makes the system so good.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I have an opposite concern: I know a lot of the 5th Edition material, and there's a lot of merit to much of it, and it would benefit me as a user for 6th Edition to be as forward-conevrtible as possible. In other words, you can take your existing 5th Edition character and convert it to Version 6 fairly easily, and in such a way that the way it plays is nto altered fundamentally. Much like the conversion between the 3rd and 4th editions of GURPS -- while not seamless, they are possible. By comparison, it's very hard to convert a 2nd edition BESM character to the 3rd edition and converting a 3rd edition D&D vcharacter to 4th Edition is almost impossible by defnition.

Does that make any sense? This is not going to be the final version of the Hero System (at least not if we're lucky), but I should be able to take my 5th edition characters and make them 6th Edition characters fairly simply.

[CTaylor]

Well, D&D3rd had a lot of growing up to do in order to be a modern game, but Hero kind of set the standard for what a modern game looks and works like. I agree, not much change is needed, just some streamlining, adjustments, maybe a few new power ideas that some have discussed here. I just don't see the need for huge changes in order to justify a new edition.

[Vulcan]

Not to be a spoilsport, but this is the "Powers Issues: F-K" Thread. I understand the point of the current discussion stems from the proposed changes to Killing Attack, but perhaps we could try to keep things a wee bit more to subject?

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, D&D3rd had a lot of growing up to do in order to be a modern game, but Hero kind of set the standard for what a modern game looks and works like. I agree, not much change is needed, just some streamlining, adjustments, maybe a few new power ideas that some have discussed here. I just don't see the need for huge changes in order to justify a new edition.

I agree huge change is not needed. I don't agree that a new edition is justified if there is only minor tinkering to be done. D&D 3.5 was mentioned by Talon - much of the backlash against 3.5 resulted because the minor level of change did not justify, in many players' minds, the cost of repurchasing all their books again.

Note that D&D 3.0 debuted in 2000, while Hero 5e debuted in 2001.

D&D 3.5 debuted in 2003, and 5er in 2004. The key difference, to me, is that Hero was very careful to change as little as possible, and did not tout 5er as "a new edition". I suspect that their sales suffered for it - I expect D&D 3.5 sold a much greater % of 3.0 sales in its first year than 5er generated as a % of 5e.

4th Ed D&D is out in 2008, and Hero 6e in 2009. I suspect Hero will want strong sales of 6.0. Minor tinkering isn't the way to generate those strong sales, especially in short order. Major change risks alienating some of the existing fan base, but carries the prospect of attracting new fans, and will likely sell much faster to existing fans. At the end of the day, Hero needs to make the business decision as much as the artistic decision. Which approach will sell better?

Plus, of course, I agree with Steve that a new edition is only worth doing if it is a major change. Fine tuning does not merit a brand-new edition.

[CTaylor]

5th edition wasn't a new edition? How do you figure that? It has sold more than 4th edition, I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas here.

[BobGreenwade]

5th edition wasn't a new edition? How do you figure that? It has sold more than 4th edition, I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas here.What are you talking about? Who said this?

[CTaylor]

Hugh did:The key difference, to me, is that Hero was very careful to change as little as possible, and did not tout 5er as "a new edition". I suspect that their sales suffered for it

My point is that people bought 4th and 5th edition despite their not being deep changes and major shifts in the rules and how the game is built. When Hero tried that, we got fuzion and it died a horrible death. It seems to me that the presumption that we need big changes to justify a new edition and that people won't buy it otherwise is simply without historical precedent or logic.

[schir1964]

The key difference, to me, is that Hero was very careful to change as little as possible, and did not tout 5er as "a new edition". I suspect that their sales suffered for it
Hugh did:

My point is that people bought 4th and 5th edition despite their not being deep changes and major shifts in the rules and how the game is built. When Hero tried that, we got fuzion and it died a horrible death. It seems to me that the presumption that we need big changes to justify a new edition and that people won't buy it otherwise is simply without historical precedent or logic.
I believe Hugh was referring to 5th Edition -> 5th Edition Revised for that specific part of the post.

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

5th edition wasn't a new edition? How do you figure that? It has sold more than 4th edition, I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas here.

What are you talking about? Who said this?

I believe Hugh was referring to 5th Edition -> 5th Edition Revised for that specific part of the post.

Exactly. Thanks, Christopher.

5th Ed had the substantial difference of a new company taking over the IP after a long publishing hiatus. And they did make a fairly large number of changes. Just off the top of my head:

- Sweep and Rapid Attack, plus numerous skills to go with them
- Multiple power attacks in print for the first time
- separation, repricing and mechanics changes to Aid and Healing
- revision of Regeneration, Instant Change and Damage Control
- numerous added advantages and limitations applied to specific powers (Clinging Damage Aura, anyone?; Summon; Resurrection and limb regrowth)
- EC Drain one Drain all limitation
- Hand Attack 3 point per die eliminated

I suspect even a cursory comparison of the two rule books would reveal many more changes. And we do still have posters who note that the changes were not significant enough to cause them to buy 5e, and many more who weren't sold by the changes to buy 5er. Which was deliberate - Steve made the commitment early on that things would not change . A commitment which has not in any way been reiterated in his comments on 6e. In fact, the possibility for changes to KA seems to be high on Steve's radar, compared to other powers in f-k, given the following:

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Powers that begin with F-K that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about these Powers that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

Steve’s Thoughts: The answer to this may play into the whole issue of streamlining the Adding Damage rules (see the Combat post). However, I think the idea is worth considering. I can see the “gaming logic” that instituted this rule in the first place, but it doesn’t entirely make sense. Just being stronger doesn’t necessarily mean you can make a knife or axe or whatever do more damage than it’s capable of doing. Additionally, it’s not necessarily consistent — there are lots of attacks with the “I hit them really hard, or in a particular way” special effect, such as eye gouges (Sight Group Flash, No Range), and they don’t get any bonus from STR.

However, if this change is made, it almost certainly means that HKA and RKA should be combined into one Power (see below), and that RKA in effect becomes more expensive. If we just have a “KA” Power, then RKA has to be KA + Ranged (+1/2) or HKA has to be KA + No Range (-1/2). If HKA keeps its “STR adds damage” feature, then a KA Power could be “HTH you get +STR, Ranged you get Range,” both costing 15 points per 1d6 (3 DCs).


Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea has some merit, I think. The text for the two is virtually identical in many respects. Assuming HKA keeps its “STR adds damage” feature (see above), then a single “KA” Power would simply mean for 15 points a character does 1d6 Killing Damage, and when he buys the Power he has to choose HTH (gets +STR) or Ranged (gets Range). Or perhaps, as outlined above, we choose one and do the other with Power Modifiers.

This makes Killing Attack more consistent with other Powers. The rules don’t, for example, have Drain, Ranged and Drain, HTH — they have Drain, and you buy Ranged as an Advantage if you want it. Nor do they feature Energy Blast, Ranged and Energy Blast, HTH — you buy EB as-is, and apply No Range (-1/2) if desired.


Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think the current STUN Multiplier rules are a problem — or if they are, they’re a problem for the opposite reason most people seem to think. But since they seem to be unpopular, a change might be worth considering. In that case, I think switching to a ½d6+1 STUN Multiplier would be better.

[CTaylor]

The argument isn't "does there be any changes" (which is what you're defending) but rather "should their be radical, significant changes to core rules" in order to justify a new edition. Like discarding stats, redefining movement, abandoning mental powers rules and replacing the entire mechanic with senses, dumping killing attacks and using one of the more extreme builds suggested here, dumping the speed chart, etc.

That doesn't have to happen to have a new edition. In fact, it would be harmful to do so. Harmful enough to hurt sales (ask the guys behind Fuzion how well that works out).

Incidentally, 5th edition revised wasn't a new edition. It was a revision of an edition, with some clarification and FAQ materials put into the book. Nobody pretended it was, it wasn't intended to be.

[Hugh Neilson]

Incidentally, 5th edition revised wasn't a new edition. It was a revision of an edition, with some clarification and FAQ materials put into the book. Nobody pretended it was, it wasn't intended to be.

And if all we need is some minor tinkering and clarification, I would suggest that also falls better into the class of "revision" than "new edition". ReFiveEr, anyone?

[CTaylor]

Surely you can envision some middle ground between minor revisions and changing major rules and long-established concepts of the rules, yes?

[Vulcan]

And I think over the couse of this whole forum, we have discovered that there are a couple things that really could use a pretty drastic revision to make them better.

This forum is here as a guide to Steve and co. as to how much we want changed, as well as specifics on what we want changed. But endless debates over 'big changes!' - 'no changes' doesn't fulfill that very well.http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/no.gif

It's more effective to argue the merit of the individual changes than the merit of change itself.;)

[AnotherSkip]

This forum is here as a guide to Steve and co. as to how much we want changed, as well as specifics on what we want changed. But endless debates over 'big changes!' - 'no changes' doesn't fulfill that very well.http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/no.gif



IM rather suspicious that this is just a plot by a longtime Dark Champs writer to have us fight each other while keeping us from messing with Steve in a constant volley of "here! this! try this!" the forum was set by Steve after all.

[Klaus Mogensen]

So you didn't buy 4th or 5th editions then? Because they didn't make huge changes and sweeping alterations to core portions of the long-standing rules?
I haven't bought 5th or 5eR for exactly that reason. I'm only going to buy 6th if several (to me) core problem are resolved.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Back to the issue of KAs, one simple solution is to introduce a new +1/4 advantage on normal attacks: "Killing: (Armor Piercing, Body Only)" to replace KAs. Less Stun, more Body, except against hardened defense (which takes the place of rDEF). Basic Armor would be 1 point per 1 DEF; FF would be Armor that costs END.

Only issue that I can see (except the possible oversimplification of merging resistant and hardened) is that KAs would do less Body than NAs vs. characters with little or no defenses.

- Klaus

[James Gillen]

IM rather suspicious that this is just a plot by a longtime Dark Champs writer to have us fight each other while keeping us from messing with Steve in a constant volley of "here! this! try this!" the forum was set by Steve after all.

I'm surprised nobody else has figured this out yet. :eg:

jg

[CTaylor]

But endless debates over 'big changes!' - 'no changes' doesn't fulfill that very well.

Actually it does: philosophically, Steve has to tackle this issue (although again, I'd like to point out the debate is NOT between no changes and big changes. Obviously.

[Grail Quest]

[QUOTE=Steve Long;1536900]
Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Find Weakness is a sort of Armour Piercing, which, in turn, is a mechanic that gets blocked by Hardened.
What if we enforced FX on Armour Piercing? If your FX doesn't really apply to the situation and the FX of the armour you encounter, then it doesn't apply. Similarly, if the FX for your Hardened isn't relevant to the FX of the Armour Piercing, then your Hardened doesn't apply.
IF we have this, then we also have a way to make consistent Find Weakness, Killing Attack, AVLD, NND, etcetera: That is, mechanics do not trump FX. What needs to happen on the mechanics side is the Advantage value fits the frequency that the FX will come into play.

A possible extension of this is that since FX is now important, and simply having "Armour Piercing" as an Advantage won't necessarily reduce defenses (do we still want to halve it or handle it differently?), we might let Armour Piercing STACK (possibly with increasing Advantage value when it is bought more than once). We can then have x1/8 defense if "I find weakness with my monofilament knife that slices armour like a hot samurai sword cuts through cheap margarine" (Find Weakness, Killing Attack, Armor Piercing attack) all trigger AP on the target. The target could have a kinetic repulsion field with no Hardened defense at all, but since its FX could reasonably counter all the incoming AP FXes, none of them would reduce its defense.

You would need Hardened defenses only if your armor/defense FX *would* be affected by the incoming AP attack, and you wanted to block it.


Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

... Just being stronger doesn’t necessarily mean you can make a knife or axe or whatever do more damage than it’s capable of doing. Additionally, it’s not necessarily consistent — there are lots of attacks with the “I hit them really hard, or in a particular way” special effect, such as eye gouges (Sight Group Flash, No Range), and they don’t get any bonus from STR.


You seem to be justifying an underlying mechanic change on the basis of certain FXes. I feel this is flawed. Whatever FX you can come up with to justify your mechanic change, I'm sure someone will have an FX to counter. That's sort of the nature of HERO, being open-ended and "build anything" as it is. You would be customizing the game just to satisfy an FX, and I feel that is not HERO System at all.

A different way of going about thinking about this might be "what could be gained mechanics-wise if HKA started independent from STR".

Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

I feel a better question for looking at this issue is, "Why are we using a STUN Multiplier"? Once we have the answer to this, the rest should follow.
For example, suppose the idea of a Killing Attack is one that is meant to do more BODY than STUN. Why are we not simply buying a bigger base power, and applying a Limitation for the amount of STUN it generates. Instead of making a new mechanic just for one attack power.

[schir1964]

Adjustment Powers
I think Adjustment Powers should be broken down into the components that are common to all and make them easily added or subtracted as needed to create the various types of Adjustment Powers.

I would start with the lowest common denominator for the base ability and then add on from there.

Adjustment Power (Adjustment)
Power adds or subtracts points from a target ability (must be defined at purchase).
Power affects a any ability of a specific SFX one power at a time (must be defined at purchase).
Components

Constant
Self Only
Maximum Effect: Maximum that can rolled on the dice purchased.
Costs Endurance: Adjustment Power affects target for as long as endurance.
Cost: 5 Points Per 1d6

Modifiers

Fade Rate (-1/4 Per 1d6): Effect fades xd6 Points after post 12 recovery (1d6 Set Effect = 3 Points or 1 Body).
Extended Fade Rate (+1/2 Per Step Extended): Fade effect is extended via the Time Chart.
Others Only (+1/2): Power may be used on others only (not on self). Power has no range (must touch target).
Self And Others (+1): Power may be used on self and others. Power has no range (must touch target).
No Dice Maximum (+1/2): No dice roll maximum effect restriction.
Instant Power (-1/2): Power and effect is instant.
Restoration (+1): Effect is permanent for any power that below its original value.
Reuse Restriction (-1/2): Once Maximum is reached the effect can not be used against the same power again until such time has passed where the power would have restored normally on its own.
Other Standard Modifiers Apply Where Applicable

These would be the basic components needed to build any current adjustment power.

Thus:
Healing (5 Points)
Healing allows one to permanently restore a power up to the dice maximum and only up to the maximum of the target power.

1d6 (5 Points): 1d6 Effect vs SFX (one power at a time).
Restoration (+1)
Instant Power (-1/2)
Reuse Restriction (-1/2)

I realize that something this extreme will probably never be implemented, and I'm sure some of my modifier values are probably way out of whack, but I did want to at least share what I feel the system is capable of. Thanks.

- Christopher Mullins

[IndianaJoe3]

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Yes. As currently written, it's abusable because it stacks. It might be better if it was rewritten as a Talent. (Maybe naked Armor Piercing that Requires a Skill Roll?)

[Vulcan]

I assume you mean 'it stacks with Armor Piercing."

'AP, Requires Skill Roll' is not the same thing as Find Weakness. Find Weakness is distinct because multiple sucesses grant multiple benefits. No matter how many levels of Armor Piercing you have, it still only halves defenses once.

Find Weakness makes a low-attack powered character work by reducing the level of his target's defense. A GM should probably not allow Find Weakness on a character with a big attack power (and hence the warning sign on the power).

Now I would not be opposed to seeing 'Hardened' block one level of Find Weakness per level of Hardened, but that is just me.

[IndianaJoe3]

I assume you mean 'it stacks with Armor Piercing."

It also stacks with itself. (At least it did in 5e. Did 5er change that?) If you succeed on 3 Find Weakness rolls on one target, your designated attack ignores 7/8ths of your target's armor.
Find Weakness makes a low-attack powered character work by reducing the level of his target's defense. A GM should probably not allow Find Weakness on a character with a big attack power (and hence the warning sign on the power). Since Find Weakness stacks with itself, even a weak attack can be devastating. Normally, a 6d6 EB is useless against a 48 ED. 3 FW rolls will cut 48 ED down to 6 ED. Against 6 ED, a 6d6 EB will average 15 STUN and will frequently do BODY.

[Vulcan]

Yeah, that's kinda the whole point of Find Weakness. That's why it's so bloody expensive. That's what it does! :rolleyes:

Protecting against that is what Lack of Weakness is for. If you can afford that 48 PD and ED, you might be better off with 45/45 and 6 points Lack of Weakness. Or go for the nine yards and take 40/40 and 16 points Lack of Weakness. That'll make anything less than 24< Find Weakness (which costs 75 points!:eek:) pretty much useless. And that 40/40 will still bounce anything less than 10d6 most of the time, which should be good enough for anyone.

Better yet: Take the Dark Champions fix and wear a trenchcoat. 5 points Lack of Weakness, OIF Trenchcoat. 3 points. :nonp: Maybe a big cape can do the same thing and be more costume-friendly.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

[Markdoc]

One other thing to consider on this is that making Killing Attacks a +1/2 AVLD is that it will make Normal Attacks the more effective method of destroying vehicles, walls, entangles and so forth.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing, frankly. If you want to smash a hole in a wall, you generally use a big ol' round ball on a chain, you don't shoot bullets at it.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I have an opposite concern: I know a lot of the 5th Edition material, and there's a lot of merit to much of it, and it would benefit me as a user for 6th Edition to be as forward-conevrtible as possible. In other words, you can take your existing 5th Edition character and convert it to Version 6 fairly easily, and in such a way that the way it plays is nto altered fundamentally. Much like the conversion between the 3rd and 4th editions of GURPS -- while not seamless, they are possible. By comparison, it's very hard to convert a 2nd edition BESM character to the 3rd edition and converting a 3rd edition D&D vcharacter to 4th Edition is almost impossible by defnition.

Does that make any sense? This is not going to be the final version of the Hero System (at least not if we're lucky), but I should be able to take my 5th edition characters and make them 6th Edition characters fairly simply.

That's key for me too. I don't really care if some characters need to have a bunch of extra points added to be 6th-friendly, or if "roll low" becomes "roll high" or if killing attack becomes an advantage, or if EC's were replaced with a "unified power" limitation. I would care if a significant number of characters became unplayable or if the concept behind powers became so different that a character became unusable.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'm not sure that's a bad thing, frankly. If you want to smash a hole in a wall, you generally use a big ol' round ball on a chain, you don't shoot bullets at it.
OTOH, axes are preferable to quarterstaffs when chopping through a door.

Maybe some attacks should have a 'smashing' advantage. Swords and quarterstaffs are a lot worse than axes and maces for smashing things.

- Klaus

[Netzilla]

OTOH, axes are preferable to quarterstaffs when chopping through a door.

Maybe some attacks should have a 'smashing' advantage. Swords and quarterstaffs are a lot worse than axes and maces for smashing things.

- Klaus

Not to mention that you'd probably have to build anti-vehicle weapons and explosives as Normal rather than Killing Attacks. For certain genre, like supers, it works okay because you'd expect superheroes (who mostly rely on Normal Attacks in my experience) to take out tanks. However, I don't know that we want to be building Terran Empire ships with all Normal Attacks.

[Markdoc]

Not to mention that you'd probably have to build anti-vehicle weapons and explosives as Normal rather than Killing Attacks. For certain genre, like supers, it works okay because you'd expect superheroes (who mostly rely on Normal Attacks in my experience) to take out tanks. However, I don't know that we want to be building Terran Empire ships with all Normal Attacks.

But isn't that just force of habit? We tend to think of attacks as normal (meaning "non-lethal") and killing (meaning "lethal") and we therefore expect them to do more BOD. But to a normal human, being shot with a 24d6 EB or an 8d6 RKA is going to be instantly lethal regardless. If you think of killing attacks as "designed to kill" rather than "designed to do more body" I don't see a disconnect.

For shooting holes in spaceships (or buildings, or entangles), where STUN isn't an issue and defences tend to be resistant by default, it simply makes sense to use whatever generates more BOD. If it generates a lot of stun as well ..... well, so what?

For explosives, we already do this. A grenade is prety clearly a killing attack - it sends little sharp bits of metal zinging around, but has little explosive force. A dtick of dynamite has far more explosive force, but is much less lethal to a person in the open:ie normal versus killing damage.

Over the course of this thread, I have come around to the idea that killing attacks are designed to go only against special defences (rDEF, specifically) and like any other attack that goes against a special defence, it actually makes sense (to me anyway) that they should have fewer DCs than a regular attack.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

OTOH, axes are preferable to quarterstaffs when chopping through a door.

Maybe some attacks should have a 'smashing' advantage. Swords and quarterstaffs are a lot worse than axes and maces for smashing things.

- Klaus

Right. I thought about this earlier on in the thread: about whether we actually needed different types of damage, but decided (based on experience in games like BRP where they do this) that it's more hassle than it's worth for most games.

So what we can agree with is that when it comes to damaging a door (or any inanimate object) the current meme that 'killing weapons should do more BOD" is not necessarily realistic - in the example above the quarterstaff isn't great, but a heavy club would be just as good as the axe. What we think of as killing weapons or normal weapons covers a wide gamut of attacks.

cheers, Mark

[James Gillen]

Yeah, but then you have to figure out a mechanic to simulate how smashing is better against a door than slicing, rather than simply saying X amount of damage takes out x amount of BODY.

jg

[Klaus Mogensen]

New advantage: "Smashing" (+1/4): Attack does double BODY against hard, inanimate objects.

Good for breaking things, less good for hurting people.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

That's key for me too. I don't really care if some characters need to have a bunch of extra points added to be 6th-friendly, or if "roll low" becomes "roll high" or if killing attack becomes an advantage, or if EC's were replaced with a "unified power" limitation. I would care if a significant number of characters became unplayable or if the concept behind powers became so different that a character became unusable.

cheers, Mark

I agree wholeheartedly here. I've seen a lot of proposals here that would take entire character concepts (not a particular build, but the whole and entire concept) and render it useless.

Remove the SPD chart and Martial Artists (especially the low DEF, high DCV concepts) fall apart.

Make STR cost double, and a whole host of issues come up when making bricks.

Remove Find Weakness and the 'Find Weakness and half-AP attack' concept goes away (think Bullseye here).

This sort of thing would prevent me from getting 6E.

[Vulcan]

New advantage: "Smashing" (+1/4): Attack does double BODY against hard, inanimate objects.

Good for breaking things, less good for hurting people.

- Klaus

Simple, effective, decisive. I love it.

[schir1964]

New advantage: "Smashing" (+1/4): Attack does double BODY against hard, inanimate objects.

Good for breaking things, less good for hurting people.

- Klaus
Clarification: This approach embeds SFX in the mechanics even more than they are now. I guess this goes back to the game design philosophy and how the rules should implement SFX vs mechanics. Should the mechanics have embedded SFX or should they be completely exclusive from each other? Both methods have their advantages and their disadvantages.

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

New advantage: "Smashing" (+1/4): Attack does double BODY against hard, inanimate objects.

Good for breaking things, less good for hurting people.

Great for taking down force walls, automatons and many entangles. Do these get a limitation for being hard and inanimate, or pay for an advantage not to be?

OK, automatons are animate - but why would Smashing do more BOD against a steel wall, but not a steel man?

[David Blue]

Great for taking down force walls, automatons and many entangles. Do these get a limitation for being hard and inanimate, or pay for an advantage not to be?

OK, automatons are animate - but why would Smashing do more BOD against a steel wall, but not a steel man?
I can think of someone who does a lot of Smashing. That's why the Leader invented plasti-thene: so that his so that his super-strong, virtually invulnerable Humanoids wouldn't get Smashed.

That was an advantage. But maybe not one that had to be paid for.

Some gamemasters - and maybe a lot, I don't know - reserve Hardened defenses for hard surfaces. If you're built like Colossus, you can purchase them. If you're built like Thor you can't. In this case it's a big benefit to have the enabling special effect of course. Without it, you are a prey to a lot of extremely nasty attacks.

So whether you build a steel man or a plasti-thene one there are costs and benefits.

[Markdoc]

Yeah, but then you have to figure out a mechanic to simulate how smashing is better against a door than slicing, rather than simply saying X amount of damage takes out x amount of BODY.

jg

Yep - and is an axe slicing or crushing damage? What about a two handed sword? Basically, adding different types of damage adds a great deal of complication with little actual extra benefit. Generally games I have played in, with rules that included this type of differentiation, ignored this distinction. If players ignore it where it is built in, that's not an argument for including it in 6E.

There's also the issue with hero that this is confusing special effects with SFX even more - generally not a great idea, and the fact that the target is also important - "smashing weapons" for example fare poorly against flexible inanimate objects where "slicing weapons" would excel. And what about energy weapons? It's a bit of a can of worms to open - and one best (IMO) left shut.

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Yep - and is an axe slicing or crushing damage? What about a two handed sword? Basically, adding different types of damage adds a great deal of complication with little actual extra benefit. Generally games I have played in, with rules that included this type of differentiation, ignored this distinction. If players ignore it where it is built in, that's not an argument for including it in 6E.

What I have enjoyed about HERO is that you can differentiate weapons if you want to.

You could buy an axe as 2D6K (+3 BODY versus wooden objects) if you wanted. Or a mace as 2D6K (+3 STUN versus opponents wearing hard armour).

There are all kinds of ways to make weapons distinct if, as GM, you want to put in the effort...without adding different types of damage to the game system.


Doc

[Markdoc]

What I have enjoyed about HERO is that you can differentiate weapons if you want to.

You could buy an axe as 2D6K (+3 BODY versus wooden objects) if you wanted. Or a mace as 2D6K (+3 STUN versus opponents wearing hard armour).

There are all kinds of ways to make weapons distinct if, as GM, you want to put in the effort...without adding different types of damage to the game system.

Doc

Yep, that's exactly my feeling. In fact, we've already done this in our games, simply by buying (for example) a lightsaber type weapon as +2d6HKA plus 4d6 (standard effect, only to negate DEF, -1). That means it won't destroy a giant armoured vehicle in one swipe, or do any more damage to a soft target than a hard one, but it'll cut through anything up to hardened steel as though it wasn't there at all and it'll cut through harder stuff with a little effort.

I guess I should have been more explicit: I don't want to see different sorts of damage hard-coded into the system - but I'm all in favor of building them when required with the tools we have. In other words, leave that an option, don't make it a requirement.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

What I have enjoyed about HERO is that you can differentiate weapons if you want to.

And as an aside, this is exactly what sold me on Hero system to start with: the realization that if I used Champions (as it was back then) for my D&D game, I could differentiate between a standard knife and a misercorde by specifying the latter as an AP weapon.

It sounds like a trivial thing, but I still recall that thought going off in my head, realising the degree of control it gave me to design my game and abandoning my visit to the supermarket to rush home and start statting out the wholesale conversion of my game. :D

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

And as an aside, this is exactly what sold me on Hero system to start with: the realization that if I used Champions (as it was back then) for my D&D game, I could differentiate between a standard knife and a misercorde by specifying the latter as an AP weapon.

It sounds like a trivial thing, but I still recall that thought going off in my head, realising the degree of control it gave me to design my game and abandoning my visit to the supermarket to rush home and start statting out the wholesale conversion of my game. :D

cheers, Mark

It is why, when I have gone elsewhere for superheroes, that I come back to HERO for all heroic level genres. The control allows me to make the game exactly what I want it to be...


Doc

[James Gillen]

Yep - and is an axe slicing or crushing damage? What about a two handed sword? Basically, adding different types of damage adds a great deal of complication with little actual extra benefit. Generally games I have played in, with rules that included this type of differentiation, ignored this distinction. If players ignore it where it is built in, that's not an argument for including it in 6E.

There's also the issue with hero that this is confusing special effects with SFX even more - generally not a great idea, and the fact that the target is also important - "smashing weapons" for example fare poorly against flexible inanimate objects where "slicing weapons" would excel. And what about energy weapons? It's a bit of a can of worms to open - and one best (IMO) left shut.

cheers, Mark

Well, obviously that's why HERO has never used it. :)

jg

[Klaus Mogensen]

A slight reformulation of the "Smashing" advantage:
Smashing (+1/4): Attack does double BODY against vehicles, automatons, walls, and doors.
Less SFX wording. Vehicles, automatons and bases get all sorts of cost breaks, so I think it is fair to allow a cheap advantage against them.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

A slight reformulation of the "Smashing" advantage:
Smashing (+1/4): Attack does double BODY against vehicles, automatons, walls, and doors.
Less SFX wording. Vehicles, automatons and bases get all sorts of cost breaks, so I think it is fair to allow a cheap advantage against them.

- Klaus

That's better but it still opens the whole "for a small advantage, you can buy a massive increase in effect" can of worms, which is not something that Hero system has ever done. While this advantage looks harmless enough in itself, the whole "double effect" things is a generally horrible mechanic (and also un-Hero-y). What happens when someone wants to