Healing that Hurts

[Jhamin]

OK, I have a character looking at buying a power that heals others while inflicting whatever damage is cured on her.

 

Example:

The character buys 6d6 Body Healing & want to take as much damage as she cures.

 

To me this sounds like a Side Effect, major effect (a drain on her body as big as her healing power is, 60 active points or -1) which happens every time the power is used (x2 for a power that always works) for a total of a -2 limit.

 

Problem is that that doesn't jive with the example writup listed under Side Effect (I belive it was called "mage healing") where something similar happens but the limit is -1.

 

What am I misunderstanding?

[NuSoardGraphite]

I wouldn't sweat the sidebars too much. Typos happen in a tome as massive as the FREd. If your calculations come up with -2, then by golly, use -2.

[Monolith]

The example in the sidebar assumes that the Side Effect is a 30 AP limit. You cannot take a 60 AP limit side effect on a power which only has 40 AP. So if you take the -1/2 and multiple it by 2, due to always occuring, you get a -1 Limitation value.

[Old Man]

After re-reading the Side Effect rules, it says you can take Extreme Side Effect which is (-1) for any Power regardless of AP. FREd 201.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Shadowpup

After re-reading the Side Effect rules, it says you can take Extreme Side Effect which is (-1) for any Power regardless of AP. FREd 201.

I must be reading a different version of the book than you then, because I do not see that anywhere on page 201 or 202.

[Blue Angel]

Side Effects

 

Shadowpups got it right.

 

In the bottom right corner of 5E 201 the limitations values are based on 15 or 1/4 active points of power, 30 or 1/2 active points of power, 60 or = active points of power (whichever is greater)

[Monolith]

Re: Side Effects

 

Originally posted by Blue Angel

In the bottom right corner of 5E 201 the limitations values are based on 15 or 1/4 active points of power, 30 or 1/2 active points of power, 60 or = active points of power (whichever is greater)

The key words there are: Whichever is greater. That does not state that you can put a -1 Extreme Side Effect on a 10 Active Point power.

 

It is possible that the Healing example in FREd is incorrect, but I do not think you can have a Side Effect which is greater than the Active Points in the power. I could be wrong though.

[TheEmerged]

Hey Monolith, how do you feel about rule-twisting? I've built this power as a Transfer before, with a -1/2 limitaiton "operates in reverse" combined with the -1/2 "only for 'healing' ".

[Blue Angel]

Re: Re: Side Effects

 

Originally posted by Monolith

The key words there are: Whichever is greater. That does not state that you can put a -1 Extreme Side Effect on a 10 Active Point power.

 

It doesn't say that you you can't.

 

Originally posted by Monolith

It is possible that the Healing example in FREd is incorrect, but I do not think you can have a Side Effect which is greater than the Active Points in the power. I could be wrong though.

 

You're right about that Healing example. It doesn't match either of our points of view.

 

Only one thing to do.

 

 

STEEEEEEEEVE

[Fuzzy Gnome]

Sure you can have a 60 AP Side Effect on a less than 60 AP power. If it's worth a -1 Lim to have 60 AP or the max AP in the Power, whichever is greater, it follows that 60 AP must sometimes be the greater. Otherwise it would say equal to the AP of the Power, which must be at least 60 to take this Limitation.

[Blue Angel]

Re: Re: Side Effects

 

Originally posted by Monolith

The key words there are: Whichever is greater. That does not state that you can put a -1 Extreme Side Effect on a 10 Active Point power.

 

It is possible that the Healing example in FREd is incorrect, but I do not think you can have a Side Effect which is greater than the Active Points in the power. I could be wrong though.

 

See: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=68384#post68384

 

I think that clears it up. But this means that the Empathic Healing example is not correct as per the letter of the rules but the power as built does what was intended for it. So I guess it can be an exception... even if not a very good example.

[Old Man]

Re: Re: Side Effects

 

Originally posted by Monolith

The key words there are: Whichever is greater. That does not state that you can put a -1 Extreme Side Effect on a 10 Active Point power.

 

Right, the whichever is greater part means if the Power is 60 points or less, then you suffer 60 AP worth of Side Effect. If the Power is more than 60 AP, then you suffer Side Effect equal to the Power's AP.

 

So for a 1d6 Healing you can suffer a 12d6 EB.

[Monolith]

Re: Re: Re: Side Effects

 

Originally posted by Shadowpup

So for a 1d6 Healing you can suffer a 12d6 EB.

Well a person would have to be pretty stupid to buy that.

 

Going back to the original question though, the example power does not have a -2 Limitation because the damage taken by the character when they do the healing is only 4d6, not 6d6. Thus it does not qualify for the -1 (x2) Limitation but rather the -1/2 (x2) value.

 

I should also point out that I do not agree with Steve's ruling on the Limitation. I think it is abusive to allow a player to take a larger Side Effect on a power than what it has in Active Points. But that is just me, and I can easily house rule it.

[Kintara]

I don't understand why you think that Monolith. If you get massive dibilitating headaches that often knock you out when you fail to use your budding TK power correctly, then why would you force a smaller relative limitation? The power is obviously more limited if it does more damage to you, regardless of the power's AP. Why should the side effect be 1/4 on a 1d6 TK, and higher on more expensive versions?

 

Explain to me an abusive use. The only ones I can come up with are side effects that could have benefits for the player. But side effects should almost never be beneficial.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Kintara

Explain to me an abusive use. The only ones I can come up with are side effects that could have benefits for the player. But side effects should almost never be beneficial.

A Side Effect is a Limitation, and as such should NEVER be beneficial to the player.

 

As far as your other questions, I just think it is a balance issue. I activate my IR Vision and take 42 STUN from a 12d6 Side Effect. That just does not seem correct to me. There is a big difference between using your IR Vision causing you some pain (1/2d6 NND) and knocking you out, or at the very least Stunning you. I just believe that the negative aspects should not be amplified several times. Like I said, it's a personal preference.

[Blue Angel]

Side Effects

 

Originally posted by Monolith

A Side Effect is a Limitation, and as such should NEVER be beneficial to the player.

 

As far as your other questions, I just think it is a balance issue. I activate my IR Vision and take 42 STUN from a 12d6 Side Effect. That just does not seem correct to me. There is a big difference between using your IR Vision causing you some pain (1/2d6 NND) and knocking you out, or at the very least Stunning you. I just believe that the negative aspects should not be amplified several times. Like I said, it's a personal preference.

 

 

Heck the side effect levels are described as guidelines. So House rule away.

 

Personally I think it should be proportional to the power used. The bigger the power, the more points you save, therefore the bigger the hurt. Since there is no defence against the side effect even a very small side effect will do some harm.

[pinecone]

Hmm...I always buy empathic healing with feedback -1....and because it is a lim ,the damage removed is taken as damage...???

[Balok]

I don't have a particular problem with a side effect that's worse (possibly much worse) than the power it's attached to. Such a power wouldn't be terribly useful, and therefore the player wouldn't use it often ... but it might fit a character concept.

 

Rather than simply forbidding it entirely, I think I'd look at what the player was trying to accomplish.

 

I can think of a few cases right off:

 

- A power that's useful but carries a terrible price -- the player uses it *only* in a life or death situation.

 

- A spell or gadget that "still has problems": it's in the early engineering stage, and as it's perfected, the player spends points to reduce the side effect.

 

Clearly, this is something that would have to be monitored to ensure it was not being abused. But I believe that requirement kind of runs through a system as flexible as HERO.

 

The d20 system keeps the mechanics of building feats and classes obscure; you often don't know what's abusive until you've seen it played. I'll take HERO over that.

[AnotherSkip]

Heck I disagree with Monolith.

 

Limitations _can_ be useful.

 

The evil villian may need me alive but If I kill myself he loses _everything_!

 

1d6 healing , 12d6 EB

repeat ad infinitivium nauseum.

 

 

 

It only take a smart player to make a disad into an advantage.

[Kintara]

Well, yeah. That's why I said "almost always". Say you take a STUN Only EB that usually does enough to knock you out on your Aid (let's say) Ego. If a Mind Controller enemy tries to take you over, just knock yourself out! It's better to be knocked cold than be a puppet. It's still a major limitation to have a power that knocks you out, but it ain't always bad.