Looking for a fair Limitation value

[Nolgroth]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

...The limitation value is based on the amount by which it limits the power as compared to the baseline abilities granted by that power. It is not based on the other powers that surround it.

 

And, if my game is set to prohibit any healing power other than Empathic Healing, Empathic Healing should still be priced based on the unlimited Healing power, with cost reductions for the limitations required of Empathic Healing. Otherwise, the characters should buy something else (Combat Luck, defensive skill levels, better offense to take the enemy down before being wounded, or perhaps a base where they can safely rest until natural healing restores their lost BOD), rather bthan spend points on an Empathic healing ability which is overpriced for its game benefits.

Note the phrase "my game." I've maintained that your game should be your rules or in this case rules interpretation.

 

Mine has been that in each case, Flashes, Stun damage, Drains, and Body damage, the rules already have a built in default mechanic. That mechanic serves as the baseline for recovering that particular type of damage. To shorten that recovery time by the use of another power that is commonly available reduces the value of the Limitation. In the case of having another commonly available Body healing, it would lower the Limitation.

Example:

EH Girl can heal others by taking the damage that they've sustained onto herself. She takes it at the "same amount of Body healed" which to me speaks of an Extreme Side Effect (-1). She has no choice or chance to reduce this damage. It always happens when she heals somebody. That doubles the Limitation to (-2).

 

Example:

EH Girl also has a slow Regeneration ability that is built to match her REC, but heals in a week instead of a month. Without worrying about the particulars of the Regeneration (the point being that she heals Rec per Week instead of Rec per Month) I would drop the Limitation to (-1 3/4).

 

Example:

EH Girl has an ability to Heal short term damage like Stun or END. Again, she takes the "same amount taken as Healed" and "always happens" for (-2). Brickman goes down in battle due to massive Stun loss (for our purposes none large enough to Stun him out, but a bunch of small attacks that whittle the Stun damage down to 0). EH Girl heals him of all the Stun he's taken. Chances are, his Stun value his higher than hers, so she immediately drops into Unconsciousness. All of her non-persistent powers turn off, she is at 0 CV and cannot act in any meaningful way until she recovers enough to be at 1 or more Stun. Since she is in Unconscious mode, when she does get to 1 Stun, she will also be at 1 END and have to recovery both from scratch. Of course if she is really down on Stun (-30 or more) she is in GM discretion mode on how fast she even recovers.

Now, looking at those examples, I would say the Limitation value is equal. A character can act with 1 Body or 20 Body without any change in combat effectiveness. The lower Body character is in more danger, if they are hit, and that's where the Limitation comes in.

 

In the last example, the character is rendered completely helpless in order to free a companion to fight. And by completely helpless, she cannot defend herself, cannot move to a safer location, and will likely be incapacitated until the immediate danger has long passed.

 

I would say that the Limitation value is equal. Of course, YMMV.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

But for that person being blind is still an "All the time' date=' fully impairing" physical limitation. It shouldn't matter that his body has somehow adapted to overcome the disability. Otherwise you'd have to reduce the value of the disadvantage for the person having a blind cane.[/quote']Does the cane allow a character to operate in combat without penalty?

[Greywind]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

Why is combat the great decision maker?

 

And it does just fine for Daredevil...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I Disagree

 

I disagree with this principle. In practice, I tend not to alter the value of a Limitation. However, I do take into consideration how much of a Limitation it will be within the context of the entire game…which includes other abilities a character has.

 

If a character takes a Disadvantage of being blind, then takes Spatial Awareness, blindness is not so much of a Disadvantage. Granted, the character may not be able to read print or discern colors. That is still less of a limitation than being completely blind.

 

I don't like the idea of reducing the value of Blindness to take into account that Spatial Awareness offsets some of the drawbacks of being blind. The person is still just as blind, with all the issues that entails. They have, however, paid points for Spatial Awareness.

 

If I would normally allow a 25 point disadvantage for being blind, but I reduce it to, say, 10 because spatial awareness offsets much of the disadvantages, should I not now be reducing the cost of Spatial Awareness by 15 points, since it's offsetting the 15 points of sight "value" that the character otherwise would have had for free?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

Note the phrase "my game." I've maintained that your game should be your rules or in this case rules interpretation.

 

I'm not convinced that characters in one game are somehow "more limited" than characters in another game by this specific limitation. Certainly "not while immersed in water" should vary depending on how common immersion in water will be in the different games.

 

Mine has been that in each case, Flashes, Stun damage, Drains, and Body damage, the rules already have a built in default mechanic. That mechanic serves as the baseline for recovering that particular type of damage. To shorten that recovery time by the use of another power that is commonly available reduces the value of the Limitation. In the case of having another commonly available Body healing, it would lower the Limitation.

Example:

EH Girl can heal others by taking the damage that they've sustained onto herself. She takes it at the "same amount of Body healed" which to me speaks of an Extreme Side Effect (-1). She has no choice or chance to reduce this damage. It always happens when she heals somebody. That doubles the Limitation to (-2).

 

Example:

EH Girl also has a slow Regeneration ability that is built to match her REC, but heals in a week instead of a month. Without worrying about the particulars of the Regeneration (the point being that she heals Rec per Week instead of Rec per Month) I would drop the Limitation to (-1 3/4).

 

Example:

EH Girl has an ability to Heal short term damage like Stun or END. Again, she takes the "same amount taken as Healed" and "always happens" for (-2). Brickman goes down in battle due to massive Stun loss (for our purposes none large enough to Stun him out, but a bunch of small attacks that whittle the Stun damage down to 0). EH Girl heals him of all the Stun he's taken. Chances are, his Stun value his higher than hers, so she immediately drops into Unconsciousness. All of her non-persistent powers turn off, she is at 0 CV and cannot act in any meaningful way until she recovers enough to be at 1 or more Stun. Since she is in Unconscious mode, when she does get to 1 Stun, she will also be at 1 END and have to recovery both from scratch. Of course if she is really down on Stun (-30 or more) she is in GM discretion mode on how fast she even recovers.

Now, looking at those examples, I would say the Limitation value is equal. A character can act with 1 Body or 20 Body without any change in combat effectiveness. The lower Body character is in more danger, if they are hit, and that's where the Limitation comes in.

 

In the last example, the character is rendered completely helpless in order to free a companion to fight. And by completely helpless, she cannot defend herself, cannot move to a safer location, and will likely be incapacitated until the immediate danger has long passed.

 

I would say that the Limitation value is equal. Of course, YMMV.

 

Let's assume that the only thing that may be in dispute here is the reduction in the limitation for the ability to heal BOD more rapidly (there's some question whether "takes as much as he heals" is a fixed side effect, reducing the limitation, and I'm not certain whether or not I agree; in any case, it's beside the point we are discussing).

 

Let us take a fourth example to illustrate the matter. Assume that EH Girl has the ability to heal BOD, but that she does not assume the BOD damage she heals to the target. Instead, she takes STUN equal to twice the BOD damage healed (eg. 6d6 healing rolls 22 and heals 11 BOD. EH Girl does not take on the whole wound, but does assume the target's pain and suffering, so she loses 22 STUN instead). What is the limitation for that ability?

 

On the one hand, if she heals someone in combat, she is just as disadvantaged as your example of healing STUN or END with a side effect of losing STUN or END. On the other hand, as the BOD damage does not seriously impede the injured target (unless he dies, of course), she can generally wait until after the combat is over and heal him then.

 

As noted previously, compared to other limitations, EH is getting a pretty low limitation for the Takes BOD limitation. She can't heal 3 times per day, every day, like a character with 3 charges, costs END can, for example.

 

Does the value of the Stun to Stun limitation vary depending on whether EH is useful in combat? Should it be reduced if she has no effective attacks anyway and, as such, can only contribute indirectly (eg. by healing BrickMan)? The team loses much less when EH is KO'd than if she also had an effective attack.

[CourtFool]

Release the Munchkins

 

Feel free to apply a flat value to Disadvantages and Limitations. It is your game after all. Just don't come, posting to me when your munchkin players max out on Disadvantages and Limitations that do not limit them in the least.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Release the Munchkins

 

Feel free to apply a flat value to Disadvantages and Limitations. It is your game after all. Just don't come' date=' posting to me when your munchkin players max out on Disadvantages and Limitations that do not limit them in the least.[/quote']

 

There are certainly some instances where the characters' other abilities are relevant. "Only in Intense Magnetic Field", for example, becomes much less limiting when you have CE: Create Intense Magnetic Field, and "Not when immersed in water" has a very different value if your campaign is set in Atlantis than if it is set in the Sahara.

 

But Blindness and Spatial Awareness? I pay what, 20 or 25 for Spatial Awareness and get 25 disad's for blindness. Will that character be more powerful than the character that kept his normal sight, bought no Enhanced Sense, took a Hunted and a Psych Limit for 25 points instead of Blindness and put the 20 or 25 points saved for Spatial Awareness into attacks, defenses and/or skill levels?

[CourtFool]

Re: Release the Munchkins

 

The limitation value is based on the amount by which it limits the power as compared to the baseline abilities granted by that power. It is not based on the other powers that surround it.

 

There are certainly some instances where the characters' other abilities are relevant.

 

These statements seem contradictory to me. Granted, the official rule is that a Disadvantage/Limitation that is not a disadvantage or that does not limit the character is not worth any bonus or points. I have always houseruled that a Disadvantage/Limitation that is not as disadvantageous or limiting is not worth the same bonus or points.

 

Your last post seems to agree with me except for my example. Is this correct?

[McCoy]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

I put forth that we agree to disagree on this topic and move that we call up the next item on our agenda.

Seconded!

[Greywind]

Re: Release the Munchkins

 

These statements seem contradictory to me. Granted, the official rule is that a Disadvantage/Limitation that is not a disadvantage or that does not limit the character is not worth any bonus or points. I have always houseruled that a Disadvantage/Limitation that is not as disadvantageous or limiting is not worth the same bonus or points.

 

Your last post seems to agree with me except for my example. Is this correct?

Court of Personal Opinion or Court of Play Balance?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Release the Munchkins

 

These statements seem contradictory to me. Granted, the official rule is that a Disadvantage/Limitation that is not a disadvantage or that does not limit the character is not worth any bonus or points. I have always houseruled that a Disadvantage/Limitation that is not as disadvantageous or limiting is not worth the same bonus or points.

 

Your last post seems to agree with me except for my example. Is this correct?

 

I don't find the statements to be contradictory. The limitation is based on how much it limits the power. Where the extent of that limitation varies based on campaign parameters, that needs to be taken into account. "Not in space" is much more limiting in a Space Opera Star Hero game than in, say, Pulp Hero or Fantasy Hero, and this should be taken into account. "2x STUN from attacks launched by Elves" will be worth more in a Tolkeinesque fantasy world than a modern Supers game. These examples require an assessment of how common the circumstances that trigger them will be in the specific game.

 

On the other hand, "One Charge" or "Linked" are pretty much locked into place - regardless of setting, you can use it only once per day/only when the other power is used. A blind character loses the default ability to see. The impact of that is unchanged regardless of the campaign world.

 

So I certainly agree that, for several types of limitations and disadvantages, the campaign world makes a significant difference to the value. I disagree, as seen above, with your example of Blindness varying depending on whether a character has a compensatory targeting sense. If the same character wanted to take a power that functioned "Only when unable to see", putting "Blind" on his character sheet would certainly change the value of that limitation.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

I'm not convinced that characters in one game are somehow "more limited" than characters in another game by this specific limitation. Certainly "not while immersed in water" should vary depending on how common immersion in water will be in the different games.

Simple; if there is another method of rapid healing that is commonly available then the character is not as limited. If there are not other types of rapid healing, then the character is more limited. If EH Girl takes 10 Body by healing Brickman and is in turn healed by Clericman on the next segment, the Limitation doesn't really Limit. Just the fact that she has access to an alternate rapid healing makes her power less limited. So if one campaign has other rapid healing and one doesn't, EH Girl is "more limited" in the one that doesn't.

 

I think I am taking the character and setting as a combined whole when determining a Limitation's value. I may be wrong, but it looks like you are isolating the power construct when determining its Limitation value. If that is the case, then we have very different styles of determining fair limitations (and probably Advantages and character disadvantages for that matter) and we will probably not reach an accord easily on that subject.

 

Let's assume that the only thing that may be in dispute here is the reduction in the limitation for the ability to heal BOD more rapidly (there's some question whether "takes as much as he heals" is a fixed side effect, reducing the limitation, and I'm not certain whether or not I agree; in any case, it's beside the point we are discussing).

Actually I considered that as well. In this case, I think the "fixed side effect" is trumped by just how much Body can be taken.

 

Let us take a fourth example to illustrate the matter. Assume that EH Girl has the ability to heal BOD, but that she does not assume the BOD damage she heals to the target. Instead, she takes STUN equal to twice the BOD damage healed (eg. 6d6 healing rolls 22 and heals 11 BOD. EH Girl does not take on the whole wound, but does assume the target's pain and suffering, so she loses 22 STUN instead). What is the limitation for that ability?

If she always takes twice the Stun as Body healed, I'm going to say (and this is a snap decision) that with a 6d6 healing she is probably right up there at -2 again. 60 Active Points (or more) Side Effect always occurs when the power is used. Again I would say the "fixed side effect" is trumped by the potential severity. In essence, this ability does not change the drawback to the power, only the benefit.

 

As noted previously, compared to other limitations, EH is getting a pretty low limitation for the Takes BOD limitation. She can't heal 3 times per day, every day, like a character with 3 charges, costs END can, for example.

So in all this, what Limitation value would you put on it? I'm not sure I've seen that posted yet. If so, I missed it.

 

Does the value of the Stun to Stun limitation vary depending on whether EH is useful in combat? Should it be reduced if she has no effective attacks anyway and, as such, can only contribute indirectly (eg. by healing BrickMan)? The team loses much less when EH is KO'd than if she also had an effective attack.

As much as combat is a benchmark, the ability to hit and do damage is not the sole evaluation of combat usefulness. If she can pull a lever to activate a trap, she is still quite useful. If she can pull a Stunned comrade out of harm's way, she is still useful. If she can spot an enemy sneaking about to get a surprise attack on Brickman and warn him, she is useful. All of that without throwing a single attack.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

Why is combat the great decision maker?

Because time is detailed to the second and game mechanics (skill rolls, END usage, etc) are defined in precise terms and conditions. Outside combat, time is fluid and system mechanics can be abstracted in order to tell the story.

 

And it does just fine for Daredevil...

The cane does? Here I was thinking it was his super senses granted by being exposed to some hazardous material and years of training to fight.

 

(The above is a snarky comment. Snarkiness in this case is intended for humor as opposed to insult.)

[Greywind]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

I personally believe that characters should be self-contained and not limited by the other members of the group.

 

EH Girl does her thing and Bob "Clericman" Smith decided not to show because he'd rather get laid than play with the group, she is limited far beyond what she should have been.

 

Daredevil's cane is also his swingline and his billy club.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

I personally believe that characters should be self-contained and not limited by the other members of the group.

 

EH Girl does her thing and Bob "Clericman" Smith decided not to show because he'd rather get laid than play with the group, she is limited far beyond what she should have been.

Ahh. So then Clericman and EH Girl are the only two healers in the entire setting and there are no items that can heal (potions, scrolls, quick acting bactine, etc)? If that is truly the case, then I agree with you. If there are NPC healers or items, then I don't.

 

Daredevil's cane is also his swingline and his billy club.

Ignore the snarky comment. It really wasn't necessary or appropriate to this conversation.

[CourtFool]

Please Help Me Understand

 

I don't find the statements to be contradictory.

 

So we agree that the campaign world is relevant to the value of Disadvantages and Limitations?

 

I still do not understand your stance on the relevance of the character's other abilities to the value of that character's Disadvantages and Limitations.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

I think I am taking the character and setting as a combined whole when determining a Limitation's value. I may be wrong' date=' but it looks like you are isolating the power construct when determining its Limitation value. If that is the case, then we have very different styles of determining fair limitations (and probably Advantages and character disadvantages for that matter) and we will probably not reach an accord easily on that subject.[/quote']

 

I think where we disagree on this specific instance is how limiting it is to have a side effect that recovers rapidly vs how limiting it is to have a side effect that recovers over months.

 

Actually I considered that as well. In this case' date=' I think the "fixed side effect" is trumped by just how much Body can be taken.[/quote']

 

As I said, I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, the side effect is based, in part, on a die roll. Good healing roll can equal major BOD loss. On the other hand, if the target is down, say, 2 BOD, I know my side effect isn't going to result in me taking 10 BOD. I can also control the magnitude of the side effect by reducing the dice of Healing I use. A typical Side Effect isn't reduced by reducing the number of dice I choose to use. On that logic, it is less limiting than a typical side effect, so I think the "fixed result" reduction is probably applicable. In any case, I'm not 100% confident of the "correct" answer, and it's not really germane to the area where we do disagree.

 

If she always takes twice the Stun as Body healed' date=' I'm going to say (and this is a snap decision) that with a 6d6 healing she is probably right up there at -2 again. 60 Active Points (or more) Side Effect always occurs when the power is used. Again I would say the "fixed side effect" is trumped by the potential severity. In essence, this ability does not change the drawback to the power, only the benefit.[/quote']

 

To the fixed effect, as much for my own benefit to think it through as anything else, a typical Severe Side Effect would be 6d6 of damage, so say 6d6 Stun Loss to go with my 6d6 healing. This character has the option of surveying the field, knowing that 6d6 STUN is likely to stun or KO her, and deciding to only Heal 2d6 BOD, on the theory that this should be enough to remove the victim from death's door long enough to resolve the combat, when she can apply the full 6d6 without the negative ramifications of being Stunned or KO'd.

 

So in all this' date=' what Limitation value would you put on it? I'm not sure I've seen that posted yet. If so, I missed it.[/quote']

 

I would apply the same limitation to a Side Effect that does STUN or a Side Effect that does BOD and can be recovered rapidly (such as treating the damage taken from healing the target as a Drain, or an Empath who has regeneration, possibly only to recover BOD taken by empathic healing). Short-term STUN loss can mean being Stunned or KO'd, a definite drawback. Short-term BOD loss can mean being dead (either by the side effect or by further damage). Although less likely, that's a much more serious result, so there's some balance there. It also restricts how often the power can realistically be used in a short time. If EH has 15 BOD, she's not able to use her 6d6 Heal 3 times in a short period without risking death. Using it twice likely puts her in "bleeding to death" territory.

 

If she only recovers BOD on a monthly basis, she has effectively restricted use of the power to once or twice per month, which is far more limiting than -2. She could get a -2 limitation for 3 charges per day, Costs End and use the power almost 100 times in a month. Isn't a power that can be used once or twice in a month more restricted than one that can be used almost 100 times a month?

 

This seems to be the crux of our difference. My baseline assumption is that rapid healing is available as a baseline in most games where a power like Empathic Healing would be available. As such, my baseline for a -2 limitation for a side effect that does BOD is that such BOD loss will be fairly transient, not linger for months.

 

In a campaign setting which departs from the baseline such that this restriction will result in long-term BOD loss, I would be inclined to allow a greater limitation for taking the same amount of BOD from each use of the power.

 

In a campaign setting where I really want to restrict access to healing, but for some reason I want to allow emathic healing without encouraging it, I might use the standard -2 limitation, but I think that would more be me sending the message "I don't want easy access to healing powers in this game, so I'm going to make even this ability considerably more expensive than it's really worth".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Please Help Me Understand

 

So we agree that the campaign world is relevant to the value of Disadvantages and Limitations?

 

I still do not understand your stance on the relevance of the character's other abilities to the value of that character's Disadvantages and Limitations.

 

 

I agree the campaign world dictates frequency of certian conditions, and that frequency, in turn, dicates the values of many disadvantages and limitations. As such, the campaign world dictates the value of a lot of disadvantages and limitations.

 

The character's other abilities must be measured in context. The character whose powers only work underwater didn't pay any points to flood the Atlantis setting of the campaign, and didn't get any points back for the fact it is set in a desert. The value of the limitation/disadvantage must be adjusted to compensate for the relative frequency of his ability to use this power.

 

The character who is Blind and has a 25 point suite of enhanced senses that results in the effective reversal of his blindness, no more and no less, is, if anything actually worse off even with 25 points granted for Blindness. He has exactly the same abilities as every other character, but has spent 25 of his maximum points to achieve that result. A second character with all the same abilities, except that he is not blind (and has some other 25 point suite of disadvantages) and has +9 DEX, +1 Speed, +3 PD and +3 ED seems to be at a considerable advantage.

 

Now those advanced senses/blindness probably aren't perfect offsets - the character probably can't do some things an ordinary sighted character can, but benefits from advantages in other arreas, so he's probably closer to equal than the above implies. But he's certainly not gaining a huge advantage over the sighted guy who's faster, tougher and has a Hunted and a Psych Lim.

[CourtFool]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

Aha! We agree on the principle. The dispute is about my example. Thank you for clearing it up.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

If she only recovers BOD on a monthly basis' date=' she has effectively restricted use of the power to once or twice per month, which is far more limiting than -2. She could get a -2 limitation for 3 charges per day, Costs End and use the power almost 100 times in a month. Isn't a power that can be used once or twice in a month more restricted than one that can be used almost 100 times a month?[/quote']After going over the Limitations in 5ER, I'm starting to agree with you in some respects and maintain some of my other arguments. Perhaps the -2 Limitation value is a bit stingy. I have been known to be stingy with Limitations upon occasion so this isn't too surprising . On the other hand, I still maintain that if EH exists, the Recovery has to be at the natural rate or the value of the Limitation goes down. The sheer presence of other rapid healing methods makes the EH less effective because the healer can in turn be healed by somebody/something else.

 

And I would still like to see a what your hard limitation value would be.

[Greywind]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

What about a limitation that doesn't allow for reduced die rolls? The power has to be used at full effect every time?

 

I'm also fiddling with the idea of running it off of standard effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

After going over the Limitations in 5ER' date=' I'm starting to agree with you in some respects and maintain some of my other arguments. Perhaps the -2 Limitation value is a bit stingy. I have been known to be stingy with Limitations upon occasion so this isn't too surprising . On the other hand, I still maintain that if EH exists, the Recovery has to be at the natural rate or the value of the Limitation goes down. The sheer presence of other rapid healing methods makes the EH less effective because the healer can in turn be healed by somebody/something else.[/quote']

 

I would agree that the limitation should be higher if the empath must recover by natural healing, and lower if they can recover quickly. The area of disagreement may be the baseline limitation. It's a tough one, since I think most of us (myself included) initially are very skeptical of a limitation greater than -2.

 

Rapid healing options allow the Empath to heal more rapidly. However, they also beg the question why these same rapid healing methods could not have been applied in the first place, so the Empath never took BOD in the first place. Had the Empath not been there, how long would it have taken for the wounded target to access another means of healing the lost BOD? If such access was easy for the target, how valuable are the Empath's powers anyway?

 

And I would still like to see a what your hard limitation value would be.

 

I don't see a "hard value". If rapid BOD healing is readily available through some other mechanism, or if the Empath recovers at a rapid rate in any case (eg. it's a BOD drain rather than BOD damage; the Empath has Regeneration), the standard side effect limitation (-1 3/4 or -2, depending on how one views the "fixed effect" issue, is where I think it settled) seems reasonable.

 

If the limitation effectively prohibits use of the power more frequently than once per month, I'd be inclined to look at "extra time - 1 month" for a baseline, although the limitation on the healer would be lower because she need not wait a month from starting the power to having it utilized.

 

I don't have the book with me, and setting a number isn't practical without those benchmarks.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

Extra Time 1 Month is -5 Limitation.

 

Even with my grudging admission that I may be too stingy, -5 is still just a tad too generous in my opinion. I might go as far as -4, but then I pro-rate Recovery per month into weekly bits.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

Extra Time 1 Month is -5 Limitation.

 

Even with my grudging admission that I may be too stingy, -5 is still just a tad too generous in my opinion. I might go as far as -4, but then I pro-rate Recovery per month into weekly bits.

Since the power is usable immediately and only the recovery from the side effect takes place over months, I'd be inclined to halve the value of the limitation. Thus it would be -2.5. And this is in addition to the usual Side Effect Limitation of -2. I don't think there's anything generous about giving this power a -4.5 limitation. It's a mostly useless power. What advantage do the players gain by it?

 

Before: Brickman is down 10 BODY

After: EH Girl is down 10 BODY

 

Either way, one teammate is in bad shape. Sure, you can keep your combat monster in the fight longer, but you rapidly "use up" the character with the ability to do this. Very little is gained by the use of this power, therefore it should be cheap. I can imagine why any player would buy it *unless* they had some means of recovering faster from the side effect. And such a means would almost certainly have to be Regeneration. If it's a method available to all characters, such as regular Healing without a side effect, why bother with the middle man (or middle girl in this case)?

 

I would buy the Side Effect as a Drain with the return rate bought down, not as an arbitrary "You take the BODY" without a power build behind it. We have rules with point values attached to help us balance powers. Why not use them?

 

6d6 Healing BODY, Side Effect: 6d6 BODY Drain (use the same dice roll), BODY returns at 5 cp per Month (I might handwave the "5 cp per month" which would be 2.5 BODY per month, and just go with REC/Month in BODY, if the healer's REC is sufficiently high, say around 10, I would put the SE at the "5 cp per Week" level instead.)

 

And I completely agree with Hugh about the Blindness/Spatial Awareness issue. The blindness is still limiting - to the tune of all the points which were spent on the SA!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Looking for a fair Limitation value

 

Extra Time 1 Month is -5 Limitation.

 

Even with my grudging admission that I may be too stingy, -5 is still just a tad too generous in my opinion. I might go as far as -4, but then I pro-rate Recovery per month into weekly bits.

 

I wouldn't give -5 either, as "extra time - one month" provides less flexibility. As noted above, this becomes my ceiling, and a benchmark. It's worth more than -2, and less than -5. Given that, and the fact it's probably closer to the -5 than the -2, -4 (or Phil's -4.5) seems reasonable.