Power Limitation Value for Damage from Using Power

[CrimsonDire]

Hello,

 

I am creating a hero whom takes damage from using his powers. The amount of damage is in proportion to the amount of power that he uses -- He would suffer 1d6 STUN for every 10 active points that he uses of his power.

 

What should the value of this Power Limitation be?  -1?  -1 1/2?  -1/2?

 

Thanks!

[Hugh Neilson]

A Major Side Effect which causes half the damage of the power would be -1/2.  That would be doubled for a Side Effect that happens every time he uses the power, so -1.  However, no defenses would apply to the damage taken from a side effect. 

 

I find that impact from Normal Damage to be very harsh, as the character takes a lot of BOD.  The rules allow for alternative side effects.  My bias would be to define the Side Effect as a STUN Drain.  That means only STUN is taken, but it is regained at 5 points per turn, not at the character's normal rate of recovery. 

 

The effect of Drain against a defensive power (which includes STUN in 6e) is halved, so losing 1d6 CP of STUN is a loss of 1d6 STUN.  Drain is a 10 AP power, so taking 1d6 STUN Drain for every 10 AP of the power used is an Extreme Side Effect (AP in the power, but with a minimum of 60 AP, or 6d6 STUN).  That's a base -1 limitation, doubled to -2 because he takes the damage every time.  Or cut it in half - 1d6 STUN drain per 20 AP used (minimum of 3d6 Drain) for a -1 Limitation.

 

Note that the Side Effect is technically based on AP in the power; as a GM, I'd allow it to scale, but some GMs may not, or may reduce the limitation value to compensate.  This is very much a "discuss with the GM" limitation.  I'd probably allow 1d6 stun per 10 AP recovered as normal lost Stun as a -1 limitation.  It would be -2 as a Stun Drain, so reducing that for normal recovery and scaling halving that limitation seems reasonable.  I might consider -1 1/2, depending on both character and campaign context.

 

If this is the character's main attack power, then he will not likely be very effective in combat.  If he has lots of other options and this is not likely to be used very often, it becomes less limiting.

[archer]

Assuming the limitation is a Side Effect, I would think the appropriate size of the limitation would vary wildly according to what kind of power, it's frequency of usage and how much STUN the character has. This is opinion, not necessarily the rules as written.

 

If he's taking 1d6 STUN for turning on his 10 point vision enhancement power, it only happens once as he turns it on, and he's a brick character with an ungodly amount of STUN, I wouldn't give it more than -1/4 (if that). You could turn it on before leaving the house in the morning and recover before you get in your car. That's the kind of cheesy limitation I'd try to get away with as a player and argue that is should be -1/2 or more because of "rules as written" (or the GM's not understanding the rules as written, as the case may be in various editions).

 

On the other extreme, if it is an energy projector character and it's his only attack, it might be -2 or more if he has a low amount of STUN like many starting-level energy projectors do. One good size shot and he's going to stun himself half the time or knock himself unconscious. The attack might as well have 1 charge and a side effect that the enemy does a high five every time you use it.

 

For a movement power, I'd say the size of the limitation would vary based on how dependent the character is on that movement power. If it applies to all his running and he only has running and his base amount of jumping and swimming, he's going to take damage fairly often unless he has a teammate carry him everywhere or hops along very slowly. But if the limitation is on his superleaping and he rarely uses that power anyway, the player is going go out of his way to only use that power when the side effect doesn't really limit him. The Running example is pretty much always limiting the character while the superleaping example is rarely limiting.

 

My 2 cents....

[unclevlad]

To Hugh's point...I actually like to use an END Drain sometimes, over Costs END to Activate, particularly if this is an alternate approach to "assumes hero form."  

 

But, that's also for something that's infrequent.  Here, if it's happening a lot, the slow recovery may become a significant problem, particularly for larger powers.  40 point power -> 4d6 of drain, and that's not gonna wear off for 3 turns.

 

One thing I'd strongly suggest is, see if this would literally cripple the character.  Run some combats against something generic.  Figure, even 4d6 STUN damage, with normal recoveries involved, means you're looking at notably more recoveries required, and/or leaves you open to getting knocked DEEP into negative stun territory.

[LoneWolf]

That sounds like a straight up side effect that always occurs, and as such would be worth a -1 limitation.

 

To avoid taking body simply apply the -0 limitation Stun Only from the description of the Blast power.  This results in exactly the effect you are looking for.  
 

[CrimsonDire]

Thank you, everyone for your insight!

 

I am playing and GMing in the 5th Edition, but your guidance and insights have given me a better foundation on which to build my character.

 

He is a Telekinetic to which I wanted to add an inherent weakness in the use of his powers -- use of his powers taxes his mind, stunning him or knocking him unconscious with too much use. It will give his campaigns more dimension and force me to think outside of the box. In time, hopefully, he will earn enough experience points to eventually buy out the weakness as he further develops as a hero.

 

Thanks, again! You all ROCK!!!

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

That sounds like a straight up side effect that always occurs, and as such would be worth a -1 limitation.

 

To avoid taking body simply apply the -0 limitation Stun Only from the description of the Blast power.  This results in exactly the effect you are looking for.  
 

 

Under the circumstances that might not be a -0.  When you're attacking something else, it gives you a safe takedown attack.  Here, however, you're getting a notable benefit.  

[LoneWolf]

If it is not a -0 limitation it would need to be an advantage which would increase the cost of the attack therefore allowing you to take less damage.  In previous editions you simply defined the attack as doing stun only.  6th edition they tend to use more -0 limitations for it.  

[unclevlad]

You bring up the point that the notion of advantage and limitation has to be considered.  This could be construed as a limitation on the blast *in this context* in that it is making the effect LESS impactful.  The side effect is now the "attacker", you are the "defender".  The positive side of Stun Only does not apply;  the side effect has no reason to simply knock you out.  Thus, Stun Only becomes a limitation.  So you'd have to buy MORE dice of STUN only than you would of regular damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 7/19/2020 at 9:44 AM, LoneWolf said:

That sounds like a straight up side effect that always occurs, and as such would be worth a -1 limitation.

 

To avoid taking body simply apply the -0 limitation Stun Only from the description of the Blast power.  This results in exactly the effect you are looking for.  
 

 

Viewed another way, the base side effect is not really 15/30/60 AP or 25%/50%/100% the AP of the power used.  It is really 45/90/180 AP or 75%/150%/300% the AP of the power used. 

 

The character using the power is being hit with an NND, Does BOD attack.  That's +2 advantages right there. 

 

Viewed that way, it might be more appropriate for the base Side Effect to do STUN only, with a greater limitation if it also inflicts BOD damage.  Other choices, like Drains, will not do BOD damage, and all choices come bundled with "character gets no defenses".  Taking side effects that are more than trivially likely to be incurred, and will do substantial BOD damage, is a non-starter for many players.