First, you seem to be mis-applying the Side Effects rules. There is no 1/4 reduction for "always has the same effect." There is a 1/4 reduction for always does the same damage, which is a different thing. Unless I'm misreading your brief description, the value of the SE you’re describing is -1/2 (a Minor SE that always occurs). There are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of powers with Side Effects similar to what you’re describing in books like the FHG and FHG2, if you want to take a look at some of them for comparison; none of them apply the “defined damage†reducer as far as I can recall or find.
Steve, thank you a lot for claryfing the point. Yes, it seems that I misinterpreted the rule. However, please allow me to clogger the forum just a bit more to show where and how my mistake aroused (if you think this would more proprely belong in the general forum, by all means move the post). Quoting 5er, pp. 308, Side Effect description: "In some cases a character may apply the Standard Effect Rule or in some other way define a set amount of damage or effect he takes from a Side Effect ... Typically this is worth 1/4 less limitation value" and " a character can define a Side Effect as a short-term Disadvantage (this often counts as a standard effect, thus reducing the the Limitation's value by 1/4)".
Now, upon further reflection, the only way I can tentatively reconcile the above wording with your latest ruling, and the fact that the Berserk Strength example on p. 307, which inflicts a short-term disadvantage SE, and the example powers in FHG 1&2, indeed do not apply the standard effect value reduction, is to interpret that such reduction *never* applies in cases where the SE always takes place when the character uses the power. It would only apply when the SE occurs on failing to use the power (AR & RSR). This would solve the puzzle elegantly, but I dunno if this is what you had in mind, and certainly such a caveat is nowhere to be found in the SE writeup. Maybe, I humbly suggest, the point would be worth a clarification in the FAQ or 6ed in the distant future, since IMHO the text cited above is misleading in applying the rule.
I'm rather pleased to see that what I perceived as a significant imbalance came from honest misinterpretation.
Question
Wanderer
Steve, thank you a lot for claryfing the point. Yes, it seems that I misinterpreted the rule. However, please allow me to clogger the forum just a bit more to show where and how my mistake aroused (if you think this would more proprely belong in the general forum, by all means move the post). Quoting 5er, pp. 308, Side Effect description: "In some cases a character may apply the Standard Effect Rule or in some other way define a set amount of damage or effect he takes from a Side Effect ... Typically this is worth 1/4 less limitation value" and " a character can define a Side Effect as a short-term Disadvantage (this often counts as a standard effect, thus reducing the the Limitation's value by 1/4)".
Now, upon further reflection, the only way I can tentatively reconcile the above wording with your latest ruling, and the fact that the Berserk Strength example on p. 307, which inflicts a short-term disadvantage SE, and the example powers in FHG 1&2, indeed do not apply the standard effect value reduction, is to interpret that such reduction *never* applies in cases where the SE always takes place when the character uses the power. It would only apply when the SE occurs on failing to use the power (AR & RSR). This would solve the puzzle elegantly, but I dunno if this is what you had in mind, and certainly such a caveat is nowhere to be found in the SE writeup. Maybe, I humbly suggest, the point would be worth a clarification in the FAQ or 6ed in the distant future, since IMHO the text cited above is misleading in applying the rule.
I'm rather pleased to see that what I perceived as a significant imbalance came from honest misinterpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts