Jump to content

Modeling "Take a Recovery"


g3taso

Recommended Posts

Hmmm I almost wonder.. the max negative stun people might reasonably get is say 100 (some threads suggest well over 200...). And unless you need them instantly waking up, could do one of a few easy ways... I'd think.

Regeneration: BODY only, meh... Otherwise it would fit better...

+100 stun (50AP), only to counteract negative stun/slow recoveries (-1), OAF immobile (ICU?) (-2), cost 17pts

Oxygen mask...?
Healing 1d6, standard effect (3pts), 0 END, persistent, always on, faster (once per turn)(+1 1/2): (35AP). OAF (oxygen mask w/ smelling salts?) (-1), only to heal negative stun(-1), cost 12pts.

Either of these with a result of 3 per turn (or higher) would wake up with a -100 stun in about 6 minutes (or less).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I base negative stun recovery rates on CON: equal to CON, CON+10, CON+20

And you feel this is better than doing so based on STUN, why, exactly?  I ask because you just made it more expensive to recover from being deeply unconscious, since CON costs more than STUN.  Thus, I see this as a detriment, not an improvement ... since it is seldom fun for a player to be unconscious for a protracted period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Take a Recovery" is built as a +1 1/4 Independant Advantage for a character's natural 4 REC.

 

4 APs (their natural REC) times +1 1/4 (because you only pay for the advantage, not what it applies to) equals 4.25 CP.

 

Of course it doesn't matter because the construct doesn't function anyway. Your Recovery score isn't a Power that heals STUN and END when it activates, it is a static value that determines the effects of extant maneuvers (Taking A Recovery) and Conditions (Post Segment 12 Recovery). So Triggering REC doesn't actually trigger a Recovery. All that power is doing is forcing the victim to turn back on their REC if for some reason the GM let them turn it off.

 

'Forcing' a Recovery should be built using an appropriate Healing STUN & END construct. It won't be simple, but simulationism never is in Hero System.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Recovery score isn't a Power that heals STUN and END when it activates, it is a static value that determines the effects of extant maneuvers (Taking A Recovery) and Conditions (Post Segment 12 Recovery).

And your justification for this interpretation is....?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Next you'll be telling me this isn't really a palindromedary tagline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you feel this is better than doing so based on STUN, why, exactly?  I ask because you just made it more expensive to recover from being deeply unconscious, since CON costs more than STUN.  Thus, I see this as a detriment, not an improvement ... since it is seldom fun for a player to be unconscious for a protracted period.

Um, the standard rule has fixed thresholds, it's not based on STUN.

 

IIRC there was a very old rule to that effect (2e?), but it definitely hasn't been the case from 4e onwards. Not that you can't have a house rule to that effect if you feel it works better. Christopher's CON based one has the effect of letting rugged characters bounce back quicker... which is a boon for PCs in that category, but a problem when they are trying to take down similar enemies.

 

g3taso has clarified this is about getting someone who's deeply unconscious back up and running quicker, not forcing someone to take a recovery who may not want to.

 

As I see it the main options are:

 

STUN Aid (6pts per 1d6, each point of effect adds 2 STUN, points fade)

STUN Healing (10pts per 1d6, each point heals 2 STUN, points do not fade)

STUN Boost (6pts per 1d6 and mandatory limitation, each point of effect adds 2 STUN, points vanish when off)

Extra STUN, usable on others (1 pt per 2pts of STUN, points vanish when turned off)

(To be honest, this is so close to STUN Boost I'd just roll with that option)

Minor Transform (Unconscious to Conscious; 5 points per 1d6)

 

If you're JUST trying to raise their threshold one bracket, +10 STUN will do the trick. As I pointed out in a previous post, raising it one bracket and "helping them to wake up" will bring even the deepest KO into the -11 to -20 bracket and allow post-12 recoveries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also appreciate the clarificationas to g3taso's intent, as I must have missed it when following this thread across the last few days.

 

 

 

Um, the standard rule has fixed thresholds, it's not based on STUN.

I think I might have inadvertently confused you (and/or other readers).  Yes, the standard rule has fixed thresholds ... of STUN.  However, Christopher Taylor does his recovery thresholds based on CON ... which means CON expenditures (which aren't free) become the basis for recovery from deep unconsciousness.  I was asking him why he thinks something that potentially costs more ... is something he feels is better.  I'm open to it the idea -- but it's just not reaching out and hitting me 'wow, that's a great idea' so I'm asking why he thinks it's a good one.  (What I do see, immediately, is that the base thresholds are likely higher, erm, I mean lower ... as in more negative ... so it takes more to deny the post-seg12 recovery, from the get-go?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you feel this is better than doing so based on STUN, why, exactly? 

 

I like how it makes CON more useful in 6th edition and it models what I think the stat does better in terms of healing and recovery.  It just makes more sense to me that someone who has a better CON will recover better and now that REC is completely separate from CON it creates that effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how it makes CON more useful in 6th edition and it models what I think the stat does better in terms of healing and recovery.  It just makes more sense to me that someone who has a better CON will recover better and now that REC is completely separate from CON it creates that effect.

Fair enough.  But, umm, if CON is to be more useful, shouldn't its cost go back up?  (i.e. One of the key things done from 5ER to 6E was to reduce the usefulness of CON ... and to also reduce its cost.  This approach sort of undoes some of that?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At present CON does so little that it might be overpriced, honestly.

 

Should it be then 2/3 instead? Or... even 1/2 as it's almost entirely for stunning resistance as I understand. But if it isn't going to be have a characteristic roll for any skills, drop that and make it cheaper. probably...

 

Or if you drop CON replace it with SR/SP (Stun Resistance/Stun Protection)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CON giving a buffer to the first KO bracket really doesn't add too much.

 

CON's primary 6e role of resisting Stunning is worth the price IMHO... plus there's those powers "Based on CON" to watch out for, as well as normal poisons and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your justification for this interpretation is....?

"Recovering" (CC 18): "Characters get to Recover in two situations: Post-Segment 12; and when they choose to Recover as a Full Phase Action."

 

Recovery itself is a Characteristic, which as a class of powers are all Persistent (CC 54). Per the rules for Persistent powers (CC 44), a character's Recovery "stays activated unless the character deliberately turns it off", and despite fact that the character still only gets to Recover under the conditions specified above. So there should never be a need to activate someone's Recovery in the first place because it is already active.

 

"Taking A Recovery" is explicitly defined as a Full Phase Action separately from the Zero Phase Actions of Turning a power Off or On (CC 138).

 

Forcing someone's Recovery to activate (assuming for whatever reason it isn't already active) does not cause them to "Recover" (gain the benefits of having taken a recovery) because doing so does not fulfill either of the conditions under which characters get to Recover.

 

The only game mechanics that can force someone to Take A Recovery are Mind Control and Presence Attacks, and even then the victim would have to be conscious, use their own phase to take the recovery, and suffer all the normal penalties for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CON giving a buffer to the first KO bracket really doesn't add too much.

 

 

I agree, its not a major change, just gives the stat a hand up in terms of stat usefulness.

 

CON's primary 6e role of resisting Stunning is worth the price IMHO... plus there's those powers "Based on CON" to watch out for, as well as normal poisons and such.

 

 

Yeah I try to play up stat rolls in my games.  Memory, not gagging at the stench, doing two things at once, etc.  Not as a burden, but to give players more of a feel of being their characters rather than themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, not enough CON in a super fight leads to lost phases and held actions, half defenses, and constant powers switching off. It's a MUCH bigger deal than Comeliness ever was.

 

And there's always "Based on CON" powers. If your players are blase about CON, throw Ganja Man or the Crack Queen at 'em.

 

Plus, if your character ever finds themselves needing to perform a stamina feat, that's the stat they'll be rolling on. Heroic level might have less concerns about END, constant powers switching off, or taking large amounts of STUN past defenses, but it's also more likely to hit tasks that the character needs a CON roll for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CON giving a buffer to the first KO bracket really doesn't add too much.

Other than adding time to combats. Imagine the typical Supers game, and having to get opponents down to -33 or more STUN so they don't keep bouncing back up. Although, if one follows the "0 to -10, now {-10+CON] is "heavily stunned but still standing", that last hit that takes him down (doing double STUN as he is already below 0 STUN) is much more likely. I find that rule does a lot to dispel the "hit him when he's down so he stays down" appearance Hero can take on.

 

CON's primary 6e role of resisting Stunning is worth the price IMHO... plus there's those powers "Based on CON" to watch out for, as well as normal poisons and such.

Resisting STUN is not so much "worth the price" as "mandatory for a competent character". It's effectively a character tax, as you have to have enough CON to avoid routine loss of a phase every time the character is hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just putting my $0.02 in:

 

I have gamed in campaigns where the following was used.  This is just my experience and not indicative of what may happen in your game.

 

1) Stun bought usable on others with charges: Was slightly effective since the effect lasted only a few segments allowing a person to take a recovery on their phase.  Possible slight legal problem depending on the amount of stun because by the rules any loss of stun done to a character exceeding CON results in the character being stunned.  So a +20 Stun on a 18 CON character could result in the character being stunned when the charge wore off.  In the end, this line of power was not used, as healing was deemed more effective and the effect in combat was that when a character was down, the attacker would hit them again to make sure they stayed down.  Instead, we instituted that a successful paramedic's roll could raise you 1 level from unconsciousness which was more inline with comics (heroes shaking heroes awake) and encouraged more heroes to have paramedics.

2) Using CON as a stun level was tried and considered bad.  This is in champions games.  In heroic level games to simulate action movies, it wasn't as bad (actually helped when creating genres like a game placed in Scream).  What happens is people stay up a little more for combat.  Not a bad thing really, except for bricks.  That brick with the 33 Con was almost impossible to take out and ended up with people constantly pounding them even when they were unconscious.  We also tried using REC as a stun level.  That was quickly dropped even for heroic games.

 

Personally, I've found REC aid is much better than trying to make a more efficient recovery in combat but this might be due to item 1) where we could use paramedics to aid in recovery level.  I think though, if your recovery is less than 10, recovering in the turn instead of post 12 is usually just post-poning the inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "wake up version":

 

Wake Up! Aid 4d6+6 STUN (30 pts Active); Only vs unconscious characters (-1); 15pts

 

Or just

 

Wake Up! Healing 2d6+6 STUN (40 pts active); Only vs unconscious characters (-1); 20pts

 

(Keeping in mind STUN is a 2 per 1 point characteristic, so 2d6+6 will restore 16 to 36 STUN, with a reliable median of 26. But some may prefer to keep it as whole dice or run it as a completely standard effect.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than adding time to combats. Imagine the typical Supers game, and having to get opponents down to -33 or more STUN so they don't keep bouncing back up. 

 

Yeah, if you're having mooks recover and get back up you're deliberately making the fights longer to begin with.  Only big bosses should get recoveries, unless you want to let the other guys recover and run away.  Do it like the comics, don't be a slave to the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modeling a 'recharging station' for a base. Looks sorta like a tanning solon thingy... or maybe a hair dryer... or maybe a barber chair...

 

Recovery Station: Healing (END & STUN) 1D6 <20 AP>, OAF (Immobile, -2), standard effect: cost 7pt

 

 

Only big bosses should get recoveries, unless you want to let the other guys recover and run away.

Ooohhh is that why some battlefields are seemingly missing a lot of bodies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...