Regenerating other stats than Body

[unclevlad]

5 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Steve could answer this but were we not discussing this context I think you'd agree that "restoring stats to their proper level" is in no way "raising" stats.   Raising is Aid.  Restoring is Heal.  Not really any reasonable way to deny that unless you just really don't want people to heal as much as they roll on the dice because you figure it will break the game, somehow.

 

I disagree.  A stat started at 8, now it's 9.  That stat has been raised.  You're trying to parse "restore"...but semantically, "restore" is a subset of "raise."

 

And ok, let's allow the notion that "restore" might not mean "raise" per se, or at least that your interpretation is plausible.  Fine...then by damn, MAKE IT EXPLICIT!  Because the core statement for me still remains the text on page 135, and the distinction between "raise" and "restore" is much too nebulous.  This is an example of why the rules are considered so complex.  The bare statement on 135 forces me to 141...then the Healing power listing and I *still* have to parse semantically similar terms?  That is a MESS.

 

It also doesn't help that Heal is a kludge anyway, as has been mentioned.  Maybe in part because it's trying to allow too many options/try to avoid excessive bookkeeping.  (Like, "can only Heal the BODY from any given attack once" means you have to track the BODY from each attack.  UGH.)  The fact that Healing was driven by fixing BODY damage makes it fundamentally different from anything else, so using it as a basis is not a great idea.  A completely different basis offers chances for a better final power.

[dmjalund]

i think the problem is that with the current rules, there is no concept of a 'damaged' stat, just one that has been reduced and will increase later.

[Hugh Neilson]

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Again, Regeneration is not an adjustment power and is not subject to the "adjustment powers have half effect on defensive powers" rule.  And while the examples and errata is inconsistent, the rules do state pretty clearly that the halving only affects powers that raise or lower stats (Aid or Drain, in other words) and healing does not do so.  However given that 6th edition excessively reduced the cost of END, I could live with that stat being halved in effectiveness as a general rule for Regen and Healing.

 

Another option would be to increase the cost of regeneration at any rate faster than once per turn.  For example, make it 20 for once per phase and 25 for once per segment (or just don't allow once per segment as a rule: that's too quick for game balance to allow).

 

Regeneration is a "Special Power allows a character to regain BODY lost to injuries and other effects at a much faster rate than normal."  It does not allow you to regain STUN, END Blast, Defenses or any other ability by the rules.  To expand it to other abilities, we are creating new rules.  One of those rules can easily be "it is only half as effective for defensive characteristics", which is as simple as making it both a Special and an Adjustment power. 

 

As long as we are sticking to the rule book, there is no need as Regeneration only recovers BOD.

 

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

The 2 function differently.  BOD is not a consumable;  END is.  The rate of that consumption is completely under the player's control...and worse, can strongly impact the costs for many other powers by making Reduced END largely pointless.  (Just came to mind...2, even 3 shot autofire?  As long as it's intended as an occasional choice, I'm not gonna pay the major premium for Reduced END.  Which makes effective Autofire VERY cheap.)  The BODY recovery rate has no such impact.

 

What about STUN?  Abilities that recover STUN more rapidly than REC would can be just as much an issue.  The key difference is that, for the most part, I choose when my END is diminished, but even then I can use STUN to get more END.  Note that the adjustment powers section lumpos END and STUN in "expendable abilities".

 

I could argue that you should not get to buy Regeneration - recovery of BOD is a function of REC.  Buy REC, BOD only, -2 limitation.  But that's way too expensive for the in-game benefit.  So is normal Healing of STUN and END in most cases - my 60 AP Stun Heal can recover a maximum of 36 STUN per day.  Woop de doo!  A 7 REC recovers 35 per minute!

 

18 points to recover 5 END per phase is pretty powerful, I agree.  1d6 Healing, reduced reuse rate per phase (+1 3/4), 0 END (+1/2) Constant (+1/2) 37 AP Self Only (-1) 18 real, or 18 points for APG style rapid Regen applied to END. The Healing will average 3.5 per roll, so 3.5 x 5/2 = 8.75 average END restored per phase. 

 

If I allow REC, END only, -1, though, that 18 points buys you +36 END per turn.  That's 6 per phase if you have a 6 SPD, or 9 per phase with a 4 SPD.  Healing with Reduced Re-Use allows pretty rapid recovery.  The question is not "is that what the rules allow?", but "is that an acceptable result in my game?"

 

How much REC, BOD only, would you need to recover 1 BOD per day, much less per phase?  We accept Healing and rapid Regen of BOD more readily than STUN or END mainly because STUN and END already have pretty rapid recovery mechanisms.  Limited REC can't accelerate healing fast enough to replicate the source material at a reasonable price.

 

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The point about not allowing Heal to happen more than once per turn might be fine, but then, what's the difference between Heal END, per turn, and REC?  REC is better. I'd have to be Heal END and STUN, once per turn.  We're talking...+3 advantage, right?  Off the top of my head.  So that's 40 active.  REC will be cheaper.

 

The problem is that, as long as one is better than the other at the same price, we have a problem.  1d6 Healing, reduced reuse rate per phase (+1 3/4), STUN and END (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2) Constant (+1/2) 42 AP Self Only (-1) 21 real.  Now I'm averaging 14 per turn if I have a 4 SPD, or 21 if I have a 6 SPD.  The Healing won't recover BOD, and I can't accelerate it by taking a Recovery as my action in a phase, but it will recover STUN every phase while I am KOd at -75 STUN.  In a Supers game, with a 6 SPD, I think I might choose the Healing.  It will mean I don't recover from being KOd to -7 as fast, though.

 

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I agree that the examples are inconsistent but the primary source is 6E1 page 135, and there is no ambiguity.  Healing is an adjustment power;  BODY is a defensive ability.  Done.  The examples that contradict are wrong unless and until that text is changed.

 

The errata also makes this very clear.  The effect of Healing is halved on defensive powers.  P 135 is correct and the examples that contradict it are not.

 

To the LTE issue, this will again depend on how you are going to define the effects of Healing.  We could rule that, Healing or not, the character still used END.  So, if your 4 SPD character Healed 14 END last turn because of Healing, has a 4 REC and used 6 END per phase, he spent 24 END which is 6x REC.  LTE would then tilt the balance more in favour of REC.

 

As to reduced END, if buy a much higher REC (whether END only or not limited), I can also save some points by not buying reduced END.

 

17 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Except that section says "check below for more information" which below has the text I quoted about raising or lowering powers.  Its in the base rules, in the part of the book you are referring to, a clarification of that rule regarding what is and is not affected by this rule.

 

You can heal others is the main difference (and heal body parts that have been destroyed).  If you're referring to Regeneration, then REC is usually better but Regeneration is in addition to recovery.  It lets you stack.

 

Its fine to just declare Regen only working on BODY because it was merely meant as a way to simulate certain abilities in source material (like Wolverine regenerating) and give a way to get body back faster than the very slow healing in the rules.  Later, as Healing was added and Destroy (then Drain with longer recovery rates), then the dynamic shifted and Regeneration's purpose and concept shifted.

 

For those looking for "check below", it actually says "See 6E1 141". I do not see anything in the discussion of Defense Powers on that page that would change the view that changes the fact that END, BODY and STUN are all "defensive abilities" with halved effect from adjustment powers.  They are even listed sequentially in that order on both p 135 and p 141.  What am I missing that would change the issue?

 

I'd say 5e Steve thought Regen had shifted since it became a Healing construct.  That was far from well-received, and 6e put it back again.  After that, we got that "18 points heals 1 CP of a Defense Power every phase" accelerated Regen from APG.  [Actually, is that every phase or every segment?  Every segment is obviously more rapid, double or more for most characters.]  Regen also gets that outlier "can't apply UBO" rule.

 

Why does it matter that Heal and REC would stack?  I can spend 50 points on REC, 50 points on Healing or 25 points on each, so being able to stack does not seem hugely advantageous.  Stacking REC to recover BOD on Regen is pretty much meaningless.

[unclevlad]

Quote

 

  19 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

The 2 function differently.  BOD is not a consumable;  END is.  The rate of that consumption is completely under the player's control...and worse, can strongly impact the costs for many other powers by making Reduced END largely pointless.  (Just came to mind...2, even 3 shot autofire?  As long as it's intended as an occasional choice, I'm not gonna pay the major premium for Reduced END.  Which makes effective Autofire VERY cheap.)  The BODY recovery rate has no such impact.

 

What about STUN?  Abilities that recover STUN more rapidly than REC would can be just as much an issue.  The key difference is that, for the most part, I choose when my END is diminished, but even then I can use STUN to get more END.  Note that the adjustment powers section lumpos END and STUN in "expendable abilities".

 

Yes, but they're different in a few ways.

 

#1:  simply the cost difference.  2 CP of END is 10 END, which is itself 1.5 to 2 phases' worth of END, even with no reduced END.  Could be It'd only be 4 STUN, and that's not particularly likely to make a difference.

 

#2:  STUN expenditure is more erratic.  It can be significantly higher in a short span in 'normal' play, and NOT by the player's choice.  Yeah, something like a 5-shot autofire burst at full END might be built in, but that's typically a desperation tactic...or I suppose, pre-emptive style.  It's clearly not a routine, repeatable choice.  (Of course, a 3-shot AF burst could easily be the opening phase 12 salvo because you know you'll get most of the END back immediately.)

 

#3:  the massive difference between END and everything else is the existence of Reduced END, and its enormous applicability.  Particularly at higher power levels...END expenditure per turn doesn't increase linearly with power level, it increases faster.  Active points in attacks rise, raising END;  but SPD rises too.  So, anything that notably increases END recovery may *save* points by letting significant other changes that are no less effective, but notably cheaper.  

 

Now, if this is never allowed to occur more than once per turn, it's FAR less of an issue.  It may be a non-issue but it'll depend on proposed implementation.  Most of what we've seen so far, tho...would be more expensive than simply raising REC.

 

But in general, I don't like Heal or Regen being extended to REC or STUN that have been expended by normal means, because that's what REC is for.  I'm absolutely not a fan of trying to contort a power to duplicate something else that's relatively straightforward.  I have no issue with Healing or Regen helping to recover from a Drain;  I could readily see, say, a "life energy" healer-type who has no more than marginal Power Def, but whose body shakes off the effect of a Drain a lot faster.  

[Terminax]

Oi, this has gotten over complicated for a simple (and completely optional) rules question.

 

Circling back to the original question, I'd choose option 2. I can see more applications than just END and STUN, but they're very, very niche. Regenerating CON and EGO can be used against some esoteric attacks like a poison Drain vs Con OR a some form of psionic attack Drain vs EGO or the like. As for Regeneration of END, if you tied it to flight of a certain speed, you could simulate a scramjet which feeds it's own END. I'm sure given enough thought, one could apply it other ways as well. Certainly the main side use is if you also extend the Regeneration time chart to per phase/18pts and per segment/20pts so that's 10 END or 4 Stun for that cost.

 

Since this is an optional rule which flat out states that it can lead to unbalanced situations it's use is probably limited to the GM's use and if it isn't, at least the GM has been warned. How many of you GMs run into someone wanting to use this optional rule?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

As long as we are sticking to the rule book, there is no need as Regeneration only recovers BOD.

 

I'm not the one making this up, the company put out a book that proposed this as an optional rule.  This isn't a house rule I came up with.  Nothing about the idea changes Regeneration from a Standard rule except someone's determination to make it so as a house rule.

 

Quote

Oi, this has gotten over complicated for a simple (and completely optional) rules question.

 

I agree completely, we get side tracked a lot here on minor quibbles rather than the main point of the post.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I'm not the one making this up, the company put out a book that proposed this as an optional rule.  This isn't a house rule I came up with.  Nothing about the idea changes Regeneration from a Standard rule except someone's determination to make it so as a house rule.

 

And so we come full circle.

 

Emphasis added below

 

On 7/13/2021 at 11:41 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I asked this in the "Ask Steve" board, but Simon suggested I take it down here instead since its not an official part of the printed rules:

 

In the Advanced Player Guide I, they mention the option of regenerating characteristics other than Body, which makes sense and is a useful concept.  However, there is no real details on how to do this.  There are three possibilities that I can think of that might be used:

 

So the rules do not, anywhere, say whether Regeneration is an adjustment power, or is like an adjustment power in interacting with defensive powers, or even is just a variant of Healing which would be halved when applied to defensive powers.  Making that determination is in the province of the GM choosing to use the option of applying Regeneration more broadly, to reduced characteristics other than BOD.

 

You asked for commentary on how we might do this.  Some posters have suggested it could incorporate a halving of effect when applied to defensive abilities, which would imply it is already halved in its "recover BOD" form, since BOD is defensive. 

 

Are you now saying that there actually are real details that specify that regeneration would not be treated as an adjustment power if expanded beyond its sole purpose of recovering BOD in the core rules of the game?  Or are we still discussing a quick comment that one might add the option of regenerating other abilities than BOD, leaving each GM the task of assessing how this would be implemented, should they choose to do so?

 

I built Regeneration per Phase above and it came out to 18 points.  It's 16 for one per turn, by the book.  If we reduced the Reduced Re-Use and added Extra Time, what would happen?

 

1d6 Healing, BOD, 0 END (+1/2), Constant (+1/2), Persistent (+1/4) is 22 AP.  Self Only (-1), Extra Time 1 Day (-4) makes it 4 points, the same price as Regen.

 

1d6 Healing, BOD, 0 END (+1/2), Constant (+1/2), Persistent (+1/4), Re-use per turn (+1 1/2) is 37 AP.  Self Only (-1), Extra Time 1 Turn (-1 1/4) would only be 11 points, rather than the 16 by the books, though. 

 

But the range of 4 points for 1/day to 18 points for 1/phase is right.  The more I look at this, the more I am inclined to just build it as Persistent Healing, which (by the rules) IS Regeneration as you can't have Persistent healing, and must buy Regeneration (or, to the discussion above, REC) instead.

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm not the one making this up, the company put out a book that proposed this as an optional rule.  This isn't a house rule I came up with.  Nothing about the idea changes Regeneration from a Standard rule except someone's determination to make it so as a house rule.

 

Yes, we are well aware of that.  The rules don't include it, therefore in RAW it is not.  However, what we do not know is whether it would be, when subjected to the kinds of alterations being discussed in the APG that you want to adapt.

 

First big change:  Regen's unit is characteristic points, not character points.  This is fine because there's only 1 characteristic in question.  If you change from BODY to something else, the logical underpinning behind the cost of Regen changes.  Should Regen CON have the same cost as Regen OCV?  Before you even start with the defensive ability aspect, there is the major difference in the CP to characteristic point conversion.  

 

The one area where we veered from the main point is considering the implications, and spotting a horrific, abusive one.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

But the range of 4 points for 1/day to 18 points for 1/phase is right.  The more I look at this, the more I am inclined to just build it as Persistent Healing, which (by the rules) IS Regeneration as you can't have Persistent healing, and must buy Regeneration (or, to the discussion above, REC) instead.

 

I haven't checked the math, but it's probably largely correct.  The individual time steps might not be, but heck, that's fine.  As a unique, isolated power, I'd rather the steps were uniform.

 

That wasn't the explicit construction per se but it captured the point.  And *in this model* the assignment of 1 characteristic point for the standard effect clearly suggested that the halving rule on defensive powers made sense.  We started looking at the potential abuse of applying it to END...and careful analysis, not a brief sound bite level of analysis, said it's a problem when Regen is allowed to move up to per phase.  And moving to a basis of constant/persistent Healing immediately shifts the discussion from character points, on which Regen is based, to character points.  

 

We may have veered, here and there...but it was necessary because BODY (and STUN) changes in ways NO OTHER characteristic does.  As does END, in its way.  And these must be considered.  Your assertion that "restore" was separate from "raise" also sent things off course.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I definitely agree with the need to analyze the impact of changes or options like this. 

 

BOD is impaired much less often than STUN or END,, and much more often (at least in most games) than other stats, so the implications are also quite different.

 

The reality is allowing "per phase" for 18 means you recover BOD much faster than "per turn".  Even a 2 SPD character is far better off spending 18 points to recover 1 BOD per phase, rather than 32 to recover 1 BOD per phase.   By definition, we accept a much faster recovery in that regard.  But 16 points for 1 BOD per turn is already vastly superior to spending 4 points to recover 1 BOD per day.  Per turn is 7,200 times faster than per day.  30 REC is about 1 BOD per day, and would likely be priced at 10 points by most (+30 REC, 30 AP; BOD only -2) because we simply can't envision a limitation greater than -2 (although RAW examples like extra time exist).  The whole point of Regen is to get BOD back much faster.

 

Getting STUN or END back much faster is much more impactful as STUN and END drop a lot more.

 

If I buy 1d6 Healing, 0 END (+1/2), Constant (+1/2), Persistent (+1/4), Re-use per Phase (+1 3/4), 2 stats (+1/2; STUN and END), Self Only (-1), 45 AP, 22 RP, I will recover about 7 CP (3.5 x 4 phases = 14/2 = 7) to  10 CP (3.5 x 6 phases = 21/2 = 10) per turn.  That's 14 - 20 STUN and 35 - 50 END.  If we call each die standard effect of 3, halved is 1 (the implicit Regen model), then it would be 4 - 6 STUN and 20 - 30 END.

 

The same 22 points would allow me to recover 22 STUN and 22 END per turn.  I get a lot more END, but a bit less STUN.  The STUN recovers if I am KOd to -75, but recovers slower that if I were KOd to -9.

 

If we assume REC, END only, or REC, STUN only is -1, how does that compare?  1d6 Healing, 0 END (+1/2), Constant (+1/2), Persistent (+1/4), Re-use per Phase (+1 3/4), , Self Only (-1), 40 AP, 20 RP, I will recover the same about 7 CP (3.5 x 4 phases = 14/2 = 7) to  10 CP (3.5 x 6 phases = 21/2 = 10) per turn.  That's 14 - 20 STUN or 35 - 50 END.  If we call each die standard effect of 3, halved is 1 (the implicit Regen model), then it would be 4 - 6 STUN or 20 - 30 END.

 

Spend the same points on limited REC and the REGEN lags far behind the 40 STUN or END recovered per turn.  It's only really competitive because we can get both stats without doubling the cost (which, perhaps, suggests the REC limitation should be -1/2, which feels too stingy to me, but would mean 30 STUN or END per turn, still better STUN and comparable or better END).

 

I will suggest this is because STUN and END already recover pretty rapidly, and have a recovery mechanism intended to come up a lot already.  Viewed another way, you already "regenerate" STUN and END - no one is ever going to buy the ability to Regenerate STUN and END less often than once per turn, and once per turn would do nothing but possibly speed recovery from a deep KO on occasion.

 

I'd actually conclude that STUN/END regeneration passes the "stress test", but you need to consider whether you want the "energizer bunny" in your game regardless of how they mechanically gain the ability to rapidly recover lost STUN and END.

 

There is a key difference, I think, between my analysis and UncleVlad's, in that he is comparing END regeneration to the cost of Reduced END, while my comparison focuses on the cost of other means of more rapidly recovering END.  I really like the fact that 6e no longer leaves Reduced END as the sole viable approach to managing END utilization.

 

 

[unclevlad]

These have been drawn out.

 

END Regen that is not allowed to be faster than per turn, doesn't impact the choice to apply Reduced END.  In the comparison versus Reduced END, I was considering END Regen per phase.  (Or more abusively, constant Heal END, where you can massively increase the END recovery for VERY little.)  That may have gotten lost in the shuffle.  I do not consider Regen END, where it's defined as a net 1 CP, therefore 5 END, per time unit and per units purchased, as balanced, but I will also admit to a bias to higher-power (ergo typically higher-SPD) character builds.  At lower SPD, the problem may not exist.

 

Quote

If I buy 1d6 Healing, 0 END (+1/2), Constant (+1/2), Persistent (+1/4), Re-use per Phase (+1 3/4), 2 stats (+1/2; STUN and END), Self Only (-1), 45 AP, 22 RP, I will recover about 7 CP (3.5 x 4 phases = 14/2 = 7) to  10 CP (3.5 x 6 phases = 21/2 = 10) per turn.  That's 14 - 20 STUN and 35 - 50 END.  If we call each die standard effect of 3, halved is 1 (the implicit Regen model), then it would be 4 - 6 STUN and 20 - 30 END.

 

 

I'd rather deal with standard effect generally.  But if I can buy it like this...I don't buy 1d6.  I buy 1d6+1.  Basically 1/3 more...58 active, 29 real.  Let's stay with standard effect, it's 2 CP per phase, to each.  So it's 60 END and 24 STUN per turn.  It's a mathematical anomaly based on how standard effect and the halving rule play together *badly*.  

 

Note that if it was allowed..."1d6-1" Healing for 7 points, with standard effect of 2.  Same as the full die on standard effect.  Now it'd be 31 active, 15 real, for 12 STUN and 30 END.

 

And...should we even mention that Healing is NOT a Special Power, and thus, unless we also reclassify it as such, this could be added to an MP or VPP?  That would make it MUCH easier to add.  

 

Math issue.  3.5*6/2 is improper math.  If rounding is Hero-normal, then half of 1 (rolled) is 0.5 --> 1 CP to apply.  Ergo:  roll 1 or 2, apply 1 CP.  3 or 4, apply 2 CP.  5 or 6, apply 3 CP.  So the expected value...the overall average character points you'd gain...would be 2 per roll, or 12 per turn.  Not 1.75 per roll and 10 or 11.  Conversely, if half of 1 -->0, then you get (0,1,1,2,2,3) or 1.5 CP...9 average CP per turn.  You have to compute the expected value on the final result...the CP to apply...not on the raw roll.  Your computations are off because they fail to consider the implications of the discontinuous, integer math hiding in there.  It happens to show up *glaringly* here because the values are so small.  It's also why shifting from 1d6 to 1d6+1 happens to have a huge impact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I have no problem rolling 1d6 every phase to average 3.5, especially if I'm otherwise paying the same price for 2 per phase.

 

I don't believe there is an official "1d6+1" Healing as it's 10 points per 1d6.

 

The biggest issue with allowing a greater frequency than 1/turn is that the character's SPD now has a significant impact on the pace of recovery, which is an issue for any Constant ability, less so for one requiring phases.  If, instead, we priced from 1 turn down to every 3rd segment, SPD would  not matter.  Of course, the pace of regeneration/healing also matches the pace of END use - REC is less useful to a high SPD character outside the rare occasions when he can sacrifice phases to take recoveries.