Side Effects that harm target

[GregF]

(Quick disclaimer: I don't have 5th, so if it has an easy answer to this question, I don't know it.)

I'm trying to figure out a healing spell/ability (Through the simplified healing thing under Aid) that occasionally harms the target instead of healing it. At the moment, I'm going to go with an activation role and regular Side Effect rules and just say that it hits the target, not the user. Does this sound like an acceptable bending of the rules? Is there a better way?

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm pretty sure 5th Ed covers this, but I don't have the books with me. IIRC, the suggestion was that, for helpful powers, this would reduce the value by 1/4 or something.

Given harming instead of healing is a serious result, as a GM I'd be inclined to let it go and say the character gets full value for the side effect.

[Lord Liaden]

This specific example is covered in the 5th Edition rulebook under "Side Effects": for the Side Effects to harm the target of a Healing Power, reduce the Limitation value by 1/4.

BTW GregF, I would urge you to pick up the new edition of the rules when the opportunity presents itself. Even if you choose not to use the outright changes to the system (which are not all that extensive), the clarifications and expanded options alone are worth the price of admission.

[Chuk]

The fire mage in the FH game I'm running has a healing spell that does this -- it "burns away" the target's wounds, unless the mage screws up. Then it just burns the target.

[GregF]

That sounds good. I don't plan on getting FRED until I actually know I can run something, especially since the BBB was almost no investment at all (I found a used copy at a thrift shop for a few dollars).

[Captain Obvious]

If you get an interested group and a good game up and running, by all means get FREd. It makes a lot of effects way easier to construct.