Powering a power with stun?

[gfrobbin84]

I was thinking of making a healing power that only works on others by transferring their pain. So I was wondering if there was a way to build a power that uses stun points instead of endurance to power it?

[Ndreare]

I have allowed it as a +0 Advantage.

 

Basify based off of +1/2 0-endurance and -1/2 minor side effect occurs every time balancing each other out.

I did it like this for minor blood magic in one game, and major blood magic took body to power.

[zslane]

Ultimately, this sort of thing comes down to playtesting to get it right.

 

To my mind, it ought to be a -1/4 or -1/2 Limitation because it strikes me as considerably worse for a character to expend STUN rather than END when using a power. Especially if the Healing power can be used to a degree that Stuns the healer (i.e., STUN expenditure exceeds CON).

 

Think of it this way, the rules allow a character to use STUN when END is depleted, sort of as a last resort. Clearly, using STUN instead of END is viewed as a bad thing, so building a power around that feels to me like a substantial Limitation.

[Surrealone]

Assuming there's no Aid to STUN involved prior to use of STUN in lieu of END for a power, I tend to agree with massey,

[Armitage]

The UNTIL Superpowers Database (5e) and Champions Powers (6e) had Empathic Healing, which was Simplified Healing with the following Side Effect:

 

Side Effects (character automatically takes damage identical to the damage healed; -1)

 

Mechanically, that's a Major Side Effect (-1/2) that occurs automatically whenever the Power is used (x2).  Since it also deals BODY damage as written, only dealing STUN could knock it down to a Minor Side Effect (-1/4 x2; -1/2).  If it does a predefined amount of damage, that's normally 1/4 less Limitation.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I've done this several times.  The way I do it is to use a limitation based on the cost of the stat used in the place of END, treating it as if its an Increased END Cost multiple.  Then, if the stat is one that doesn't heal back like END, give it an additional limitation.

 

Stun is roughly 2x END and recovers the same rate, so its a -1/2 limitation base.  Body is roughly 4 times, but recovers slower, so its a bigger limitation.

 

However, since when you run out of END you're tired, and when you run out of Stun you pass out, its worth a little bit more, so maybe -3/4 to -1.

[JackValhalla]

STUN is twice as expensive as END, but it recovers in parallel with END. If your character has powers that use END, and others that run on STUN, then taking a recovery adds your REC to both END and STUN-used-as-END. There is a potential advantage to that, if you want to run your powers hard without taking lots of recoveries and you don't anticipate taking STUN damage from outside sources. 

 

I'd price it at -1/4 or maybe -1/2, depending on how the character was built and what I judged the actual limitation to the character would be. 

[Tasha]

Armitage has it the right way. Using a Side Effect to cause the damage when the heal hits. Buy the power to Zero end and you have an Empathetic heal. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well its certainly a way, but I would think requiring people to buy their active cost up for a power that's essentially weaker and penalized to use is a direction I wouldn't want to go as a GM or player.

[Tasha]

Well its certainly a way, but I would think requiring people to buy their active cost up for a power that's essentially weaker and penalized to use is a direction I wouldn't want to go as a GM or player.

Who are you quoting. because if you are quoting me then you aren't making any sense at all.

 

Empathetic Healing

36 Healing BODY 3d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (45 Active Points); Side Effects (Side Effect does a predefined amount of damage; Does Damage to Character equal to damage healed.; -1/4)

 

Straight forward build that doesn't require any bending of the rules or exotic use of powers.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Well its certainly a way, but I would think requiring people to buy their active cost up for a power that's essentially weaker and penalized to use is a direction I wouldn't want to go as a GM or player.

This is only an issue if you apply rigid AP caps with no judgment involved. Back when Steve wrote 6e, we had a couple of discussions through SETAC on active points, which Steve largely dismissed on the basis that AP caps are not part of the Hero System's official rules. Given the impact on power frameworks, I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I definitely agree that rigid AP caps aren't a great tool.

 

3d6 Healing is 30 AP. A 30 AP Side Effect can be defined as a 3d6 Drain (which conveniently matches the Healing effect, so making them equal instead of Standard Effect seems reasonable) is a -1/2 limitation. It occurs automatically, so that doubles the value of the limitation. I would say that it's not "predefined damage" since it will equal the roll, so that's a -1 limitation.

 

So 3d6 Healing, 0 END (+1/2) 45 AP, Side Effect (-1) = 22 points.

 

This is the Champions board, so let's try 6d6 Healing, 0 END 90 AP, Side Effect is still -1 (it's between half and full AP of the power), so 45 real points.

 

Now, if we pay END as well, we get 6d6 Healing, 60 AP, Side Effect now equals total AP and 60 AP, so it's -2 (30 real points). This is an issue with Side Effects, in my opinion, because they map to both an absolute and a relative value. Given no defenses apply to Side Effects, I think perhaps the "or x% of the power's AP" aspect should be removed. As the side effect is a drain, it recovers 5 points per turn, not using the character's REC. I'd be open to a reduced Side Effect limitation (maybe halving the value) if they use REC to recover, since the character likely has better than 5 REC and can also accelerate recovery by taking normal recoveries.

[Christopher R Taylor]

This is only an issue if you apply rigid AP caps with no judgment involved.

 

 

It also makes it awkward to put in power frameworks, and makes it pointlessly difficult to dispel, suppress, and takes longer to drain.  Active cost has more effects than just campaign limits.

[Hugh Neilson]

It also makes it awkward to put in power frameworks, and makes it pointlessly difficult to dispel, suppress, and takes longer to drain.  Active cost has more effects than just campaign limits.

Pretty sure I mentioned the Framework issue 2 sentences later. It is precisely as difficult to dispel, suppress, and or drain as any other Healing power that costs 0 END, with or without limitations, so I don't see that as a big issue.

[Christopher R Taylor]

t is precisely as difficult to dispel, suppress, and or drain as any other Healing power that costs 0 END

 

Well yes, that's the point isn't it?  

 

You can build it with a limitation that reduces its cost... or with an advantage that increases its cost, then a limitation that reduces its cost.  To me, the least complex one that doesn't pointlessly make it have a higher active cost seems the better one.  But its up to the GM and player what they want to do.  

[zslane]

Yeah, that's why I intimated that it would take some playtesting to get it right for the playing style of the group.

 

For my playing style, I'd just slap on a "-1/2 Expends STUN instead of END" Limited Power Limitation and be done with it. The fact that it doesn't cost Endurance is not an advantage in my view, not in the context of a power that burns STUN instead (and can conceivably Stun you when you use it as well), so I see no reason its active cost should go up.

 

I'm not sure why it has to be any more complicated than that. All this talk of Side Effects seems unnecessary to me.

[Christopher]

The big problem here is: It could be a advantage or limitation depending on the situation.

In combat it is clearly a limitation (because you use up your stun when you need it)

Out of combat, it is clearly an advatage to use Stun instead of End (because you recover stun in paralell to Endurance and you do not need your Stun).

 

Perhaps my anime modelling idea can help you:

I thought about drastically increasing the Long Term Endurance (LTE) Loss during battle (currently it is calculated by average per 15 minutes compared to Rec).

And also allowing players to take a "Cost Long Term Endurance" variant of the Extra Endurance Cost.

LTE recovers on a totally different speed from Stun and End. Not having enough End (during combat) will mean Stun damage has to be taken instead. It is always a limitation to loose LTE instead of only "normal" endurance, if it is combat or not.

[Ndreare]

I still hold by that it balances out as a +0 Advantage.

It is not really that complicated, a +1/2 and a -1/2 cancelling each other is not the uncommon.

[Hugh Neilson]

You can build it with a limitation that reduces its cost... or with an advantage that increases its cost, then a limitation that reduces its cost.  To me, the least complex one that doesn't pointlessly make it have a higher active cost seems the better one.  But its up to the GM and player what they want to do.

OK, I'm going to rephrase this.

 

You can build a Healing power, removing the usual cost of END for using such a power by taking the Costs END Advantage. You can then apply a limitation that using this power is painful, thus costing STUN, which it does not normally do. All of these effects are accounted for in the rules as written, so there should be little or no debate as to mechanical effects, such as how much STUN should be lost in place of each END that would otherwise be spent, or the value of the advantages and limitations. Or you could toss the rules out and make it up (essential, in some cases, because the rules do not already contain mechanics to achieve the effect envisioned, but that is not the case here.

 

For my playing style, I'd just slap on a "-1/2 Expends STUN instead of END" Limited Power Limitation...

 

I'm not sure why it has to be any more complicated than that.

 

 

The big problem here is: It could be a advantage or limitation depending on the situation.

  

I still hold by that it balances out as a +0 Advantage.

OK, is it -1/2, -0 or whatever price Christopher would put on it, given he has not priced it out due to the challenge of determining whether it is an advantage or a limitation.

 

BTW, if the goal was to take on the damage healed to the target, that means the STUN lost will not equal the END which would otherwise have been spent. How does the limvantage contemplated by the "it's simpler to put a single modifier on it" vision vary with the ratio of STUN to END?

 

The 3d6 Heal (3 END) will average 10.5 STUN. If we instead say "burns STUN instead of END", I assume it would only use 3 STUN, not 10.5 (neither of which is likely to Stun anyone, by the way). Does he get to buy 3d6 Healing (uses STUN instead of END, -1/2 or +0 or something else), Extra STUN instead of END (-2.5), since it will average 3.5x as much spent? Wow - I'm never taking Side Effects again if I can use this model instead!

[Christopher R Taylor]

Out of combat, it is clearly an advantage to use Stun instead of End (because you recover stun in parallel to Endurance and you do not need your Stun).

 

I don't see how that's any different than using Endurance out of combat.  You don't need to keep track of END out of combat, either.  Unless you unexpectedly get into combat and start out at a detriment -- which is worse for Stun than END.

[Netzilla]

I'm with Hugh on this one.  If there is an extant combination of Advantages and Limitations that will achieve the desired effect, I'd rather use those those than build a custom Advantage/Limitation.  There will be fewer questions regarding how it's intended to work and you're less likely to run into oddball interactions with other rules. 

 

Also, as Hugh pointed out, spending Stun in place of END is not equivalent to taking Stun from a Side Effect.  As with others, 'taking their pain' suggests to me that the character will take the same amount of Stun damage as they heal.  This means that the Stun loss will be variable, which it wouldn't be with 'Stun in place of END'.  With the Side Effect model, it could potentially be very risky to heal someone who's seriously hurt or if the healer is already low on Stun.  For example, with a 3d6 heal, if the healer is at 12 Stun or less, there's a pretty good chance they could KO themselves.  On the other hand, if they simply pay Stun in place of END, they'll only be loosing 3 Stun, which isn't a big deal.

 

Finally, if 'taking their pain' could also mean that the healer should be losing any Body healed as well.  That goes way beyond trading Stun for END and is more simply done with Side Effects.

[zslane]

All good points.

[Lucius]

I'm with Hugh on this one.  If there is an extant combination of Advantages and Limitations that will achieve the desired effect, I'd rather use those those than build a custom Advantage/Limitation.  There will be fewer questions regarding how it's intended to work and you're less likely to run into oddball interactions with other rules.

I think the objection some have to using the "First Advantage it then Limit it" solution is EXACTLY THAT it will "run into oddball interactions with other rules' as Christopher Taylor points out: 

 

It also makes it awkward to put in power frameworks, and makes it pointlessly difficult to dispel, suppress, and takes longer to drain.  Active cost has more effects than just campaign limits.

And as long as I'm putting my two cents in, I'll ask gfrobbin who started the thread- is it really necessary to make it zero END? You can use Side Effects AND still be paying the END cost.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Occasionally running into oddball interactions with a palindromedary

[Christopher]

You can build it with a limitation that reduces its cost... or with an advantage that increases its cost, then a limitation that reduces its cost.  To me, the least complex one that doesn't pointlessly make it have a higher active cost seems the better one.  But its up to the GM and player what they want to do.  

I like to say:

AP is just how strong that power is. Hitting or exceeding AP limits is a warning sign for the GM.

 

Of course the whole question boils down too: Do we really need 0 End in the first place?

Or is End+Stun Side effect acceptable?

 

I don't see how that's any different than using Endurance out of combat.  You don't need to keep track of END out of combat, either.  Unless you unexpectedly get into combat and start out at a detriment -- which is worse for Stun than END.

Yeah, I realized that mistake too late myself.

Stil there is a different between End and Stun.

Loosing Stun can be avoided (within limits). While you can not avoid using End unless, you sacrifice 1/3 of the powers strenght at buildtime and the option to push it.

 

Endurance acts as a limiter on power use in combat.

Having both seperate + extra body count (as opposed to the drain mechanic of Shadowrun magic) is a big feature. We should not carelessly throw it out.

Way back when beginning I had a similar concept - powers whose use weakens the character (would do stun damage by D&D or Shadowrun rules). But I realised that a simple "Extra Enduranc Cost" can do the same. Burning through End faster means having to burn stun instead of end that much earlier. It models the problem perfectly.

[Lucius]

Frankly, I'm not sure END and STUN should not have been a single Characteristic, but that's a topic for another thread

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

This is a palindromedary tagline for this thread

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well, if I was designing a hyper-realistic role playing game, I would have very few actual stats and no "body" or "stun" stat.  You'd just lose all stats eroding away and all abilities getting worse as you take damage until they all zero out and you die.  Nobody has a Body score that goes down while being fully functional and effective.  As you take damage you get worse and worse.  The problem is, in game terms, that really sucks because you just get more and more likely to lose the more you're hurt.