FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

[caris]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

1/2d6 also has a standard effect of 2 points, and 1/2d6 of RKA and HKA both cost 2/3 of the cost of 1d6.

 

Note that I'm not saying this was a conscious decision to make Regen a 2/3 of 1d6 power, nor to provide a +1 advantage for avoiding (or reducing to 1/turn) the time betwen Healing functioning. If there was, this +1 advantage would be presented in the build (even if as an advabtage only available for this construct). I am saying that:

 

- 2 character points per d6 is not consistent with the usual Statndard Effect rules. Caris, where else in Hero System other than your interpretation of the Regeneration build does Standard Effect get 2 points per d6 rather than 3 points per d6? [Even if we accept this is rounded for even numbers of BOD, why wouldn't 2d6 get 3 BOD, rather than 2?] The simple fact is that Regen is inconsistent in some fashion regardless of how one reads it.

 

- If we accept that the discount from 3 CP to 2 CP offsets the ability to heal every turn, then the advantage works out to +1.

 

It would not have been difficult to build the "reduced re-use time" advantage to result in "use once per turn" being a +1 advantage, thus making Regen consistent with other Healing powers with reduced re-use time. In the interests of consistentcy, I feel this step should have been taken (and should be taken in the next system update). I'm not sure why you would be so vehemently opposed to such an approach.

 

Alternatively, Regen should be priced as:

 

Regeneration: 2/3d6 Healing, Standard Effect, 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Re-Use 1/turn (+1 1/2) [2/3 * 10 * 3.5 = 23 AP] Extra Time 1 turn (-1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2) Real cost 8 points

 

This leaves decreased re-use at its present cost, so is easily applied using the rules as presently written.

 

Or, under your model where standard effect is 2 for 1d6, 1d6 Healing, Standard Effect, 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Re-Use 1/turn (+1 1/2) [10 * 3.5 = 35 AP] Extra Time 1 turn (-1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2) Real cost 13 points

 

I could live with just under 8.5 per BOD of Regen. That doesn't seem wholly unreasonable. But over 12.7 per BOD seems quite steep. Considering that the former is consistent with every other use of Standard Effect, and the latter is not, I also consider the former to be superior from a "systems" perspective.

 

 

Hugh,

 

If you mean ½D6, say ½D6. Don’t be surprised and touchy when people question your use of non-standard terminology.

 

Yes, the cost of ½D6 Killing Damage is ⅔ the cost of a full D6 of the attack. That rule seems only to apply to Powers where the Base Cost per D6 is 15 points. When the Base Cost is 5 points per D6, a half die cost 3/5. When the Base Cost is 10 points per D6, a half die costs 5 points. Following this reasoning, your model should be built with a Base Cost of 5 points, not 6⅔ points.

 

My interpretation is that only what is presented in the Rules as Written, are the only things inherent to Regeneration:

 

It is bought in whole D6, and that each D6 regenerates 1 point of Body.

 

The only Advantages applied to the Healing are Reduced Endurance: 0 END and Persistent.

 

This build than proceeds to behave in a way at odds with the rules for the power it is built off of with no explanation.

 

I could speculate as to the reasoning for why Regeneration is the way it is, but that would be pointless. Steve knows why he did it the way he did and if he ever chooses to share his reasoning, cool. I just can not believe that this was some sort of Freudian Slip of game design where Steve was attempting to sneak in a Power Modifier, but expecting us to divining it existence through speculating about what he didn’t write in the book.

[SteveZilla]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

While we're on the subject of various forms of Super-Luminal transportation, what about Hugely Megascaled Teleportation? The Jumpships from BattleTech, the navigator's ability to "fold space" in the Dune books/series, and the FTL drive used in the Battlestar Galactica series (the new one) are some examples of this type of power construction IMO.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Why Sir Paladin' date=' I am but a humble farm lad not yet even seven summers of age. What could I have possibly done to warrant a death sentence?[/quote']

 

I only have one question.

 

Does your mother always... shamble like that?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

While we're on the subject of various forms of Super-Luminal transportation' date=' what about Hugely Megascaled Teleportation? The Jumpships from BattleTech, the navigator's ability to "fold space" in the Dune books/series, and the FTL drive used in the Battlestar Galactica series (the new one) are some examples of this type of power construction IMO.[/quote']

 

The problem with this is that in a by-the-book sort of way, once you've Mega-Scaled something, it stays "scaled" to that size, without severe GM handwaving of the MegaScale rules. But generally, you can't reduce it beyond 1"=Current Size, if I'm recalling the rule correctly. Sure, FTL travel is fast, but you can execute the Picard Manuever using FTL rules; you could not necessarily do it using the MegaScale rule.

[SteveZilla]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

That's what Scaleable Megascale is for. The Picarc Maneuver (not the jacket-related one) was IMO a use of Megascaled Flight at Maximum Combat Inches, but Minimum Megascale. Or it was a special use of the "Afterimage" power (aproximate name) from the Until Super Powers Database.

 

This raises another issue in my mind. Megascaled movement is Non-Combat Movement -- which has strong ramifications on said combat (OCV/DCV primarily). Yet Star Trek ships seem to have no trouble hitting each other when using it, and can also evade.

[Beast]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

differences I see in FTL vs Megascale

FTL you go from point A to point B nothing can intercept you except a hand wave from the GM then you would need to drop to sublight flight and duke it out

generally speaking all ships are going to be with in 1 or 2 level of each other and there is no crunchy goodness of who is faster or more maneuverable at that level

 

Megascale has the crunchy goodness of defining speed and maneuver for a tactical game at what ever speed you wish to play at(silly,rediculus,ludacris,or even plaid)

however all parties need to be at the same megascale range to do combat(generally speaking those that are faster choose to either engage in combat or flee it becomes their choice)

megascale t-port can be blocked by a megascale force field that is hardened vs t-port

engine thrust can be degraded by drains,suppresses & tranfers

terrain in space can be used

it is easier to define instant jump type engines that take time to recharge(10 ly jumps but it takes 1 hr to recharge)

 

of course the cost is the pts it takes to do this over FTL

 

for me I like the crunchiness of megascale over FTL but I'll build what ever the GM decides how their universe works

 

my obsevations on various shows movement systems

Star Trek (TOS)movement and travel could happen at either sublight or warp speeds

Star Trek(NG,DS9,VOY,&all movies)travel at warp fight at sublight

Babylon 5 fight at sublight,travel ftl in an other diamension(combat is mentioned but avoided as being too dangerous to all sides but a shadow ship did wax a starfury in hyperspace with no ill effects to it self so there may be a tech thing)

SG1 Jump gates instant move between 2 known and set up points however size is limited

ships move at warp but seem to fight at sublight

Star cruiser Yamato/BSG fight at sublight folding space is a jump with a recharge time

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

That's what Scaleable Megascale is for. The Picarc Maneuver (not the jacket-related one) was IMO a use of Megascaled Flight at Maximum Combat Inches, but Minimum Megascale. Or it was a special use of the "Afterimage" power (aproximate name) from the Until Super Powers Database.

 

This raises another issue in my mind. Megascaled movement is Non-Combat Movement -- which has strong ramifications on said combat (OCV/DCV primarily). Yet Star Trek ships seem to have no trouble hitting each other when using it, and can also evade.

 

Well I haven't seen a Star Trek combat in a LONG time, but my recollection is that they rarely use MS movement; most combat occurs in close quarters at sub-light speeds, not light speeds. I don't know what that translates too, but that's how it seems to work. And, Disruptors can be dodged (being bolt weapons, like Type XII Phasers) whereas Phasers cannot be dodged, being direct beam weapons.

 

But that's a whole nother question.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Well I haven't seen a Star Trek combat in a LONG time, but my recollection is that they rarely use MS movement; most combat occurs in close quarters at sub-light speeds, not light speeds. I don't know what that translates too, but that's how it seems to work. And, Disruptors can be dodged (being bolt weapons, like Type XII Phasers) whereas Phasers cannot be dodged, being direct beam weapons.

 

But that's a whole nother question.

 

But how fast are they actually moving when they are fighting at sub-light speeds? 100"? 500"?? Just because it's sub-light doesn't mean megascale isn't one of the best ways to model their movement (example: having ships move on a scale of 1" = 100 km).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Hugh,

 

If you mean ½D6, say ½D6. Don’t be surprised and touchy when people question your use of non-standard terminology.

 

Yes, the cost of ½D6 Killing Damage is ⅔ the cost of a full D6 of the attack. That rule seems only to apply to Powers where the Base Cost per D6 is 15 points. When the Base Cost is 5 points per D6, a half die cost 3/5. When the Base Cost is 10 points per D6, a half die costs 5 points. Following this reasoning, your model should be built with a Base Cost of 5 points, not 6⅔ points.

 

2/3 of 1d6 = 2 points = 1 BOD. You aren't buying "1 BOD Regeneration". By the rules as written, you are buying dice of healing. By the way, there is no explicit statement that we are using standard effect to begin with, but rather that "each d6 heals 1 BOD".

 

My interpretation is that only what is presented in the Rules as Written, are the only things inherent to Regeneration:

 

It is bought in whole D6, and that each D6 regenerates 1 point of Body.

 

The only Advantages applied to the Healing are Reduced Endurance: 0 END and Persistent.

 

This build than proceeds to behave in a way at odds with the rules for the power it is built off of with no explanation.

 

See, my preference is to provide options, which includes reverse engineering the ability. Apparently, yours operates more on letting the book tell you what to do.

 

To clarify, I am not arguing that Steve placed a hidden modifier and fractional dice into the Regen power as drafted. if he did, then the "reduced re-use time advantage", when published, would have incorporated it. I rather suspect he simply decided regen should be maintained, wanted it dovetailed with Healing, lacked the time and/or inclination to build all the necessary advantages and limitations to logically explain the game mechanics, and tossed in some handwaves so it felt right to him.

 

I am arguing that the behaviour of Regeneration, which is "at odds with the rules for the power it is built off of" can be reconciled with those rules if one wants to put in a little effort. That can be done by analyzing the handwaves:

 

- first handwave: Regeneration ignores the reuse time rules. That seems to me to be some form of advantage implicit with the power.

 

- second handwave: despite being LISTED as "1d6 Healing", the fact is that it is "1 BOD Healing" makes it a 2 point standard effect, not the 3 point Standard Effect which applied under the rules as written, and is thus only 2/3 of 1d6.

 

Extrapolating the two, the advantage must be +1. If you prefer the interpretation that this is 1/2d6 of Healing, that's also workable. However, that makes the implicit "Reuse once per turn" advantage a +2 advantage, rather than a +1 advantage. That's actually a little closer to the actual decreased re-use chart (but it should now be 1/phase, instead of 1/turn). However, I dislike the idea that 2 1/2d6 standard effects total 4, but a full d6 totals 3. As such, I would bump the dice to "2/3 dice" to achieve costing parity.

 

I could speculate as to the reasoning for why Regeneration is the way it is' date=' but that would be pointless. Steve knows why he did it the way he did and if he ever chooses to share his reasoning, cool. I just can not believe that this was some sort of Freudian Slip of game design where Steve was attempting to sneak in a Power Modifier, but expecting us to divining it existence through speculating about what he didn’t write in the book.[/quote']

 

So, given your dismisal of speculation of this nature, I'm curious why you were reading through a thread whose purpose appears to be speculating on the reasoning for retaining FTL and Megascale as separate powers rather than folding them together...

 

To clarify once again, I am not speculating as to Steve's reasoning. I am stating that the conversion of Healing to Regeneration contains two modifiers not noted in the writeup, the first being the reduction in standard effect and the second being the elimination of re-use time. One is a benefit, the other a drawback. They must cancel each other out to obtain the pricing result. My analysis simply imposes values on each of the modifiers so the power can be tinkered with in other ways.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

But how fast are they actually moving when they are fighting at sub-light speeds? 100"? 500"?? Just because it's sub-light doesn't mean megascale isn't one of the best ways to model their movement (example: having ships move on a scale of 1" = 100 km).

 

Or, you use MegaScale (ala the Robot Warriors rules) to represent a larger Hex Map; so you have 'normal' looking movement across the field, but when you want the end of the TNG season where half the fleet goes up against a Borg Cube, those don't appear, to me, as MS movements. Simply Flight with lots of inches. This is supported (though not guaranteed) by the mechanics shown in the Star Trek Tactics game. Shockingly mediocre, but that was more a measure of flawed mechanics and implementation than game design. Yet again, they tried to 'arcadify' Star Trek, and it doesn't work too well.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

[snip]Megascale has the crunchy goodness of defining speed and maneuver for a tactical game at what ever speed you wish to play at(silly' date='rediculus,ludacris,or even plaid)[i'][snip][/i]

 

You mean like this?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

My G-d! They've gone to PLAID!

[Steel Legs]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Teleport w/Megascale models instantaneous Jump Drives. Anything else in point-munchkinning, probably.

[caris]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

I only have one question.

 

Does your mother always... shamble like that?

 

Its the arthritis, Sir. She has a powerfully fierce case of it to go with that terrible skin condition.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Its the arthritis' date=' Sir. She has a powerfully fierce case of it to go with that terrible skin condition.[/quote']

 

Can I assume tis the arthritis that keeps her from brushing... both of her teeth? *coughs politely into his gauntlet*

[caris]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

2/3 of 1d6 = 2 points = 1 BOD. You aren't buying "1 BOD Regeneration". By the rules as written, you are buying dice of healing. By the way, there is no explicit statement that we are using standard effect to begin with, but rather that "each d6 heals 1 BOD".

 

 

 

See, my preference is to provide options, which includes reverse engineering the ability. Apparently, yours operates more on letting the book tell you what to do.

 

To clarify, I am not arguing that Steve placed a hidden modifier and fractional dice into the Regen power as drafted. if he did, then the "reduced re-use time advantage", when published, would have incorporated it. I rather suspect he simply decided regen should be maintained, wanted it dovetailed with Healing, lacked the time and/or inclination to build all the necessary advantages and limitations to logically explain the game mechanics, and tossed in some handwaves so it felt right to him.

 

I am arguing that the behaviour of Regeneration, which is "at odds with the rules for the power it is built off of" can be reconciled with those rules if one wants to put in a little effort. That can be done by analyzing the handwaves:

 

- first handwave: Regeneration ignores the reuse time rules. That seems to me to be some form of advantage implicit with the power.

 

- second handwave: despite being LISTED as "1d6 Healing", the fact is that it is "1 BOD Healing" makes it a 2 point standard effect, not the 3 point Standard Effect which applied under the rules as written, and is thus only 2/3 of 1d6.

 

Extrapolating the two, the advantage must be +1. If you prefer the interpretation that this is 1/2d6 of Healing, that's also workable. However, that makes the implicit "Reuse once per turn" advantage a +2 advantage, rather than a +1 advantage. That's actually a little closer to the actual decreased re-use chart (but it should now be 1/phase, instead of 1/turn). However, I dislike the idea that 2 1/2d6 standard effects total 4, but a full d6 totals 3. As such, I would bump the dice to "2/3 dice" to achieve costing parity.

 

 

 

So, given your dismisal of speculation of this nature, I'm curious why you were reading through a thread whose purpose appears to be speculating on the reasoning for retaining FTL and Megascale as separate powers rather than folding them together...

 

To clarify once again, I am not speculating as to Steve's reasoning. I am stating that the conversion of Healing to Regeneration contains two modifiers not noted in the writeup, the first being the reduction in standard effect and the second being the elimination of re-use time. One is a benefit, the other a drawback. They must cancel each other out to obtain the pricing result. My analysis simply imposes values on each of the modifiers so the power can be tinkered with in other ways.

 

“Regeneration is an optional form of Healing BODY with the Standard Effect Rule…” sounds pretty explicit to me.

 

Didn't I shoot that guy? Bear in mind though' date=' to me, FTL & Regen are part & parcel of the system because I didn't play fourth; just Fifth [i']revised[/i]. And I have no problem with either rule, really. Why do y'all get a crick in yer necks when someone says 'regen' anyway?

 

Silly me. I see a question like that and assume that I’m being asked what my beef with the official Rules as Written, not about house rules derived from assumptions about what may or may not have been the reasoning behind the Rules as Written. So I tend to see some thing like:

 

Actually, there is an advantage inherent in the build. 1d6 Healing with Standard Effect should deliver 3 character points of BOD. REGEN delivers only 2. If you work the math backwards, avoiding the delay time (or reducing it to 1/turn, depending on your interpretation) is a +1 advantage.

 

Now, if the decreased re-use time advantage had been structured to result in a drop to 1/turn being a +1 advantage, everything would fit together quite nicely...

 

As implying that there is something in the rules as written that I missed that addresses my issue, and not “Oh, here is my house rule to deal with that issue.” Really, all your “inherent” advantage in the Regeneration build is a house rule. It is a perfectly nice house rule, but it has no bearing on what Steve put in the book and how I feel about what Steve put in the book.

 

My position is that the official build for Regeneration is exactly what is written in the book that assuming the existence or presence of anything not actually written there, in another supplement or clarified in the errata is nothing but speculation, inherently.

 

When I started reading this thread the question was:

 

Can somebody tell me why one would get one over the other? What's the difference' date=' really?[/quote']

 

Which to me was inviting a discussion about the two constructs and their individual pros and cons. For the most part I’ve skipped over any speculation about Steve’s reasoning that gets beyond to much beyond “Steve felt this is the best way to do things.”

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Wow. That's... a lot of copying and pasting of the same thing caris. And to clarify, when you said "silly me" in regards to my post, I believe you were saying that you were annoyed that my question had not been directly answered? And not, as could possibly be inferred, aiming any particular frustration in my direction?

[caris]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Can I assume tis the arthritis that keeps her from brushing... both of her teeth? *coughs politely into his gauntlet*

 

Cor, teeth brushing, Sir? I can't say as I ever heard of anything like that. Sounds like somethin' that you fancy nobles do, an' not us simple farm folk.

[caris]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Wow. That's... a lot of copying and pasting of the same thing caris. And to clarify' date=' when you said "silly me" in regards to my post, I believe you were saying that you were annoyed that my question had not been directly answered? And not, as could possibly be inferred, aiming any particular frustration in my direction?[/quote']

 

No, it was to indicate that I felt that Hugh is off on a completely differnt tangent than where I was originally coming from in answering your question.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Double check the post, my small, black magic wielding friend. I think you've repeated yourself three times; the version I see has your response to Hugh, then me, Hugh & Vestnik in a three times repeat. Mebbe I'm missing something?

 

Edit: Problem resolved.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

“Regeneration is an optional form of Healing BODY with the Standard Effect Rule…” sounds pretty explicit to me.

 

I thought the Standard Effect rules said 3 per d6. 3 CP is more than 1 BOD.

 

As implying that there is something in the rules as written that I missed that addresses my issue' date=' and not “Oh, here is my house rule to deal with that issue.” Really, all your “inherent” advantage in the Regeneration build is a house rule.[/quote']

 

I disagree. I consider the acceptance of an intrinsic ("inherent" has its own connotation as a separate advantage - threw me for a second), it's a possible explanation for why the rule in the book is as it is. A house rule would be "you can buy 'no re-use time' on any Healing ability for a +1 advantage", or "standard effect delivers 2 points per die, not 3 points per die". The fact is that, while the Rules as Written neither provide an explanation for the reduction in standard effect nor the exception to the re-use period, both are intrinsic to the Regeneration construct.

 

One clearly reduces its effectiveness. The other enhances it. The combined total leaves the price the same. Thus, the two must counter each other. If we can set the value for one, we can set the value for the other. Whether or not we can agree on a value for either (is that 2/3d6 Heal or 1/2d6 Heal makes a considerable difference) matters only if we wish to permit one to be acquired without the other. In the absence of allowing independent purchase, we can just as easily accept that "standard effect reduced to 2 CP per die and no re-use period" is a +0 advantage only available when bundled together (just like you can't get the "auto-retaliate" function of a Damage Shield without sacrificing the range of the power if it had range, but the two bundled together cost +1/2).

 

Even restricting my read to the explicit rules as written, it is clear that the reuse time which, by the rules, applies to healing does not apply to Regeneration. Clearly that enhances the effectiveness of the ability, so it is an advantage. Thus, costed or not, there is a "no reuse time restriction" advantage applied to Healing to convert it to Regeneration.

 

It is one to which no mechanic has been applied, however. This actually looks much more out of place in 5er than in 5e, given the addition of the "decreased re-use time" advantage incorporated into 5er. I suspect that, had this been included in 5e, Regen would have used it, however Hero committed that changes in 5er would not invalidate any existing power builds, so this change clearly could not be made (much as the "trigger version" of Damage Shield could not replace the existing construct).

 

My position is that the official build for Regeneration is exactly what is written in the book that assuming the existence or presence of anything not actually written there' date=' in another supplement or clarified in the errata is nothing but speculation, inherently. [/quote']

 

Assuming that there is no logic behind two changes to the official rules as written is no less speculative, in my opinion. Certainly no more, but I don't think any less either.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

... 'no re-use period'? Really??

 

Regeneration heals you to your max body; this is, in essence, the original 'Xd6 Aid, up to Y maximum effect above total'. Toss in 'only restores to starting value (-1/2),' and 'extra time (1 turn, -1)' and 'self only (-1/2)', and you have essentially what basic regeneration is.

 

No, it's not 'max on your dice of Healing'. You're getting, free, 'up to Y maximum effect above max' in exchange for -2 in required, automatic disads -- 1/2 points of which you don't actually receive. Regular Healing you can use on other people, each and every phase. If you wanted, you could go with Aid, acquire the extra points to put yourself at max, then apply everything; I'm willing to bet that while it wouldn't be precise, it'd be pretty damned close ...

[Thia Halmades]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

... 'no re-use period'? Really??

 

Regeneration heals you to your max body; this is, in essence, the original 'Xd6 Aid, up to Y maximum effect above total'. Toss in 'only restores to starting value (-1/2),' and 'extra time (1 turn, -1)' and 'self only (-1/2)', and you have essentially what basic regeneration is.

 

No, it's not 'max on your dice of Healing'. You're getting, free, 'up to Y maximum effect above max' in exchange for -2 in required, automatic disads -- 1/2 points of which you don't actually receive. Regular Healing you can use on other people, each and every phase. If you wanted, you could go with Aid, acquire the extra points to put yourself at max, then apply everything; I'm willing to bet that while it wouldn't be precise, it'd be pretty damned close ...

 

Actually, you can't use Healing on others each & every phase, that's one of the limitations on the power itself in the rules; it's why Fantasy HERO (IIRC) has such a long dialogue about different ways to use it (per wound), and why the power has 'shortened re-use duration.' Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

The purpose of Regen, yes, is to heal you faster. Voila. Healing doesn't operate the same way. It's not an "upside down Energy Blast." Which I think was Lucius' point originally.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

... 'no re-use period'? Really??

 

Regeneration heals you to your max body; this is, in essence, the original 'Xd6 Aid, up to Y maximum effect above total'. Toss in 'only restores to starting value (-1/2),' and 'extra time (1 turn, -1)' and 'self only (-1/2)', and you have essentially what basic regeneration is.

 

Healing is already restricted to restoring you to starting value only. Aid has a fade rate, so Regen is not Aid. Extra Time - 1 Turn (-1 1/4) and Self Only (-1/2) are already included in the price of regeneration.

 

No' date=' it's not 'max on your dice of Healing'. You're getting, free, 'up to Y maximum effect above max' [/quote']

 

In 24 hours, you can heal 7,200 BOD [5 turns per minute; 60 minutes per hour; 24 hours per day]. Of course, you have to be taking BOD continuously throughout the day for this to work. That's far enough above the 3 that 1d6 could normally achieve that I'd call it "no effective maximum" myself.

 

in exchange for -2 in required' date=' automatic disads -- 1/2 points of which you don't actually receive. Regular Healing you can use on other people, each and every phase. If you wanted, you could go with Aid, acquire the extra points to put yourself at max, then apply everything; I'm willing to bet that while it wouldn't be precise, it'd be pretty damned close ...[/quote']

 

You're applying 4e rules, under which Aid only faded if it raised the score above maximum. Those rules were eliminated under 5e. If you take 8 BOD, then get AIDed for 5 BOD, you are down 3 BOD, and the AID will fade until you are back to being down 8 BOD.

 

Personally, I would have liked to see Aid and Heal reconciled better so one could be constructed with the other. Perhaps the baseline would be an enhancement that always faded, and could exceed starting maximum. It would have a limitation if you could not exceed starting maximum, and an advantage if points did not fade below starting maximum.

 

Of course, we could extrapolate this from the existing rules. I'll put it in a spoiler so those opposed to such speculation koffcariskoff can avoid being offended.

 

 

1d6 Aid, does not fade below starting max (+1), only to starting max (-1/2), Costs END (-1/2) cost = 10 points.

 

1d6 Healing, 0 END (+1/2), Fade Rate (-1/2) 10 points

 

Of course, this ignores the fact that Healing is also visible by default. I guess we could add IPE - +1 - and make the fade rate -1 1/2, but the Aid became visible with no limitations other than Costs END.

 

[Comic]

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

 

Actually, you can't use Healing on others each & every phase, that's one of the limitations on the power itself in the rules; it's why Fantasy HERO (IIRC) has such a long dialogue about different ways to use it (per wound), and why the power has 'shortened re-use duration.' Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

The purpose of Regen, yes, is to heal you faster. Voila. Healing doesn't operate the same way. It's not an "upside down Energy Blast." Which I think was Lucius' point originally.

 

It appears you may be misunderstanding something, yes, if you limit re-use of Healing on others based on its re-use duration.

 

You can re-use Healing as much as you have END to pay for it, provided you can hit the (usually willing) target. You merely can't in the same day apply Healed characteristic points until the total on your dice exceeds the highest previous roll for that particular target. This means you can keep trying until you roll maximum on Healing.

 

The re-use duration applies to the phrase "in the same day" only. Once you have passed the re-use duration, you can again add more Healing to a previously Healed target. While this is pretty limiting, it is not the same as the limitation "can only Heal a target once per re-use duration" or the nearly equivalent limitation "can only apply Standard Effect."

 

Since Regeneration has a mandatory "Standard Effect," it has a much stricter limitation on it than normal Healing. Even for someone with a relatively low SPD, the chance to re-roll once per Phase could benefit them considerably, while the 1 Body(/3 Stun) minimum effect gained is by comparison only marginally advantageous. Also, you lose the 3 Stun of Healing when you go for the Regeneration power.

 

If you were to build a 'Regenerate' power, by comparison, you might want to take 1d6+1 Healing Standard Effect, which would give 2 Body, or 4 AP worth of any characteristic, for the rounding advantage, as your base. Your GM may disallow such a 'built from scratch' version of the power, since there's already a book-recommended build.