Healing woes

[Victor]

Okay... after a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, I finally managed to write up a spell that does what I want it to...

 

Cost	Power	END
9	Lifetap: (Total: 45 Active Cost, 9 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Ranged 0 1/2d6 (vs. ED), Attack Versus Limited Defense: Magical Defenses (+1 1/2) (25 Active Points); Requires A Necromancy (or other magic at -3) Roll (RSR Skill is subject to Skill vs. Skill contests -3/4), Limited Power Only vs. Living Targets (-1/2), Cannot Use Targeting (-1/2), No Knockback (-1/4), Beam (-1/4), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Limited Power Not vs. Divine or Holy/Blessed targets (-1/4), Limited Range: 10" (-1/4), Limited Power: Not on sanctified ground (-1/4) (Real Cost: 5) plus BODY Healing 1d6 (max. Healed Points: 6), Cumulative (x4 max.) (+1) (20 Active Points); Limited Power: Healing is Limited to damage done by Killing Attack (-1), Linked to Killing Attack - Ranged (-1/2), Requires A Necromancy Roll (-1/2), Limited Power Not vs. inanimate objects (-1/2), Does Not Work On Some Damage: Damage from Divine/Holy attacks (-1/4), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Limited Power: Not on sanctified ground (-1/4) (Real Cost: 4)	4

 

Which is great except for one minor detail -- it's not legal.

 

Cumulative isn't supposed to be bought for Healing, and there's no way to buy up the maximum... which together make it impossible to heal large wounds incrementally, rather than all at once.

 

It might be simpler on the face of it to buy this spell as a body transfer (since you can buy up the maximum), except for the fade rate. Whatever healing it does should stay healed, and whatever damage it does should have to be healed normally (with or without magic).

 

The only other thing I can think of would be to buy extra dice of healing only for the purpose of raising the maximum amount healed, but that really seems clunky (not to mention expensive -- END cost goes sky-high, and so do active points).

 

I haven't gotten the new FH yet, but hopefully will tomorrow. Since I doubt it changes the rules on Healing, I'm hoping someone will read this and have a better idea.

[eepjr24]

Hrm

 

Why not buy Regeneration, x Body per turn, where x is the amount that could be healed by the lifetap? Then put a limit on it, "Only up to amount done by RKA". Not sure it does exactly what you want, but seems close.

 

- Ernie

[Snarf]

Just change the rule and buy up the max healing if that's the effect you want. Changing the rule would be better than the equally illegal but indirect solution of applying cumulative.

 

Totally agree with eepjr, if you want to do this legally, your best option is to use linked regeneration. Or else you could change the concept some and use an aid, transfer, or whatever that lasts a few days.

 

Incidentally, I don't know your campaign, but I think there might be problems with some of those limitations.

 

Limited Power Only vs. Living Targets (-1/2)

How often are nonliving targets attacked in your campaign? Maybe this should be -1/4?

 

Limited Power Not vs. inanimate objects (-1/2)

Healing doesn't normally work on inanimate objects anyway.

[eepjr24]

Snarf,

 

Not sure (Don't have the book handy), but I thought there was a way to heal inanimate objects. On the "only ves living", I could see it going either way. I have been in high fantasy games where RKA's were the preffered method of opening locked doors. heh

 

- Ernie

[Victor]

Ah, I don't know why, but regen never occurred to me... but that would do it. Thanks.

 

As far as the "living targets", it won't affect weapons, armor, doors, rocks, furniture, dirt, etc. Nor will it affect trees (though they're technically alive), or skeletons/zombies/golems, or any other animated but soul-less construct, perhaps including some demons or minor elementals.

 

"Living Targets" is probably a bit vague, so perhaps "beings with mortal or immortal life-essence" would be better, ahlbeit cumbersome.

 

There's nothing in the 5th Edition description of Healing that says it can't be used on inanimate objects, nor on both inanimate and animate targets. I know there's been some discussion about the latter (which I admittedly haven't followed), but "by the book" that's a legal use of the power, and hence a legitimate limitation.

[Greatwyrm]

I'm not trying to be dense here, but could you give me an idea (without mechanics) of what the spell is supposed to do? It looks like you're trying to use an attack to suck the life force from one creature to power healing in another creature. Is that close?

[Victor]

Yes, exactly. It draws life force out of the target, and transfers some portion of it into the caster or another being.

 

That, in itself, isn't difficult. The problem I was running into was with the way Healing caps out, as it makes very small amounts of healing effectively useless after the first application (or two, if the roll is low).

 

I really hope the next version of Hero at least offers an optional means of raising the cap for Healing.

[Greatwyrm]

Just wanted to be sure I knew what you were going for before I made myself look too stupid.

 

Anyway, for dramatic purposes, you may want to make the damage from the attack a gradual effect if you go with regeneration for the healing. You could describe it as the target of the attack being able to feel their spirit being ripped little by little from their body as it feeds the regen.

 

It seems a little weird that the target takes the damage all at once, but the beneficiary heals slowly. Just a thought.

[Chris Goodwin]

Is there a reason Transfer would not work?

[Mordacius]

Is there a reason Transfer would not work?

It'd wear off, same as a BODY Aid. I suppose you could just raise the duration to the point where that doesn't matter (whatever it would take to heal the damage naturally, I guess), but that's as clunky as the original workaround.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Mordacius

It'd wear off, same as a BODY Aid. I suppose you could just raise the duration to the point where that doesn't matter (whatever it would take to heal the damage naturally, I guess), but that's as clunky as the original workaround.

 

Ahhh. I have a house rule that you can define incoming points from Transfer as acting like either Aid or Healing. I guess I was thinking of that when I posted.

[Snarf]

Nevermind, if all those sorts of things are getting attacked much in your game, then it sure would be worth -1/2. I guess I'm more used to superhero campaigns than fantasy games.

 

There's nothing in the 5th Edition description of Healing that says it can't be used on inanimate objects, nor on both inanimate and animate targets. I know there's been some discussion about the latter (which I admittedly haven't followed), but "by the book" that's a legal use of the power, and hence a legitimate limitation.

I asked about this earlier and was referred to these rulings in the rules FAQ.

 

Q: Can characters apply Cumulative to Healing?

A: No; see 5E 75.

 

Q: Could a character apply Healing to repair or mend a broken object?

A: In the GM’s discretion, yes, provided that:

1. The Healing power in question has a Limitation indicating that it can only affect objects.

2. For complicated objects (such as computers), the character has to have a relevant Skill so he understands what he’s doing (for ordinary objects, such as tables and dishes, this usually isn’t necessary).

 

If the GM’s not willing to allow this sort of power, you can instead use a Minor Transform to change “broken objects†into “whole objects.â€

 

Q: Can a character with a Healing BODY apply his Healing to Vehicles, Bases, and other things that have BODY but aren’t living objects?

A: Generally, the GM should limit Healing BODY to living creatures and PCs (regardless of how the PC is defined — a robot PC could be Healed), unless some Limitation restricts this use. The GM might also want to restrict the use of Healing BODY to forms of life relatively similar to the character using the Healing — perhaps a character’s Healing BODY won’t work on trees or insects, for example. However, characters should be allowed to buy Healing specifically for other types of creatures/objects, defined with Limitations so that it cannot affect normal characters. For example, a cyberkinetic character might have the ability to make machines repair themselves, defined as Healing BODY, Only Works On Machines (-1).

 

This is the official method but do what you think is best in your own campaign of course. I consider the ability to repair objects and heal the inanimate to be either an adder or an advantage in my games.

 

Anyway, for dramatic purposes, you may want to make the damage from the attack a gradual effect if you go with regeneration for the healing. You could describe it as the target of the attack being able to feel their spirit being ripped little by little from their body as it feeds the regen.

It could be made into a continuous and uncontrolled effect. Hit them with it and let it keep draining turn after turn until it kills them and heals you. The problem with that is you would have to define a common way for the effect to be stopped.

[Southern Cross]

Lifetap as a BODY Transfer

 

Here's how I'd build the Lifetap spell : Lifetap:1d6BODY Transfer(24 points Maximum,)Ranged(+1/2) ,Recovers 5BODY/2 months(+2),Usable By One Other(+1/4) (90 Active),Gestures & Incantations (-1/2 together) ,Requires an Opposed Necromancy Skil Roll at -4 (-1/2),Reduced Range(10")(-1/4),Useless when on Holy Ground or vs. Blessed Targets(-1/2),Not vs. Plants or Nonliving targets(-1/4).

Real Cost: 30 points.

[eepjr24]

Opposed roll lim?

 

I wasn't sure where you got the (-1/2) on the RSR. Is it:

 

RSR (-1/2), Subject to Skill vs Skill (-1/4 more), -1 per 20 active points (-1/4 less)?

 

Not sure if it fits the concept of the spell, but you might consider adding "Only restores to starting values (-1/2)" to the spell.

[Southern Cross]

Revised Lifetap Spell

 

Quite right- I was trying to keep the spell relatively simple & I didn't have my copy of FREd with me at the time.

And,if I add that suggested Limitation,the Real Cost of the spell drops to 26 points.

[GamePhil]

The answer from the FAQ might help.

 

We suggest the following as a general guideline: a character with Healing can use his Healing on a character he has already Healed one Day (24 hours) after he last applied the Healing (or, if you’re using the “track each wound separately†method, he can use the Healing again on a wound one Day after he last applied the Healing to that wound). When he does so, the Healing takes effect as if he had not previously applied Healing — the entire effect rolled on the dice, regardless of any previous rolls, Heals the character. For a +1/4 Advantage, the time between Healings moves one level up on the Time Chart (to 6 Hours, 1 Hour, and so on), but cannot be more frequent than one Healing per Turn. For example, to be able to apply Healing every 5 Minutes would be a +1 Advantage.

[Victor]

I tried it with Regeneration, but with the mandatory advantages, it got way too expensive with too little effect.

 

Buying down the reuse time at least makes use of printed rules now (in the new FH) as opposed to some online document. It's still too expensive, IMO, in terms of Active Points and END. Nor does it really make any sense.

 

An "official" variation on transfer that required Transfer/Drain damage to be healed back normally, and that allowed Transfer additions to be treated as Healing (i.e. permanant, up to normal maximum) would solve the problem for this particular spell, but until there's a "legal" way to buy up Healing's maximum Effect (instead of lowering re-use time), the power is still broken in a fundamental way, IMO.

 

The optional damage rules like doubling hit location multipliers for BODY make the situation even worse, since individual wounds will be larger, and there will be more damage taken in general. There's no way Healing is worth 10 points per die, under those circumstances.

 

At this point, I'll probably just buy extra dice of healing with a -2 "only to raise maximum healed". That raises the maximum by 6 character points (or 3 BODY, in this case), with a -1 on the skill roll, and 1 END more per casting, for 3 real points. Strangely enough, that's what it costs to buy up the maximum for other adjustment powers, although you're penalized less on RSR's, END Cost, and active point limits for buying up the other adjustment powers.

 

Those who playtested (and wrote) 5th Edition and let this slide "as is" have forever earned a cold, dark place in my heart. Shame on you.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Victor

Those who playtested (and wrote) 5th Edition and let this slide "as is" have forever earned a cold, dark place in my heart. Shame on you.

 

That's pretty harsh. Ah, well. I expect it was left in because it didn't cause too much trouble in the types of games being run, not realising that it might cause problems outside of them.

 

Still, it really sounds like you think that Healing is too expensive as it is. Are you running the game? I'd really suggest you just change it, in that case, rather than trying to get around it. Even Regeneration alters the rules on Healing for itself, and it's official.

 

Personally, I probably wouldn't have removed it from Aid, or at least I wouldn't have it working in its details so unlike that Power. But, there you go.

[Victor]

No, I don't think it's too expensive in general.

 

However, if optional rules are in use that increase the average BODY per wound, which makes those wounds even harder to heal, then yes, it is too expensive, because it's not keeping pace with the effect/point of attack powers. I guess you could arbitrate that healing a wound in a x2 body location is 2x as effective as well, which seems fair.

 

I just object to the special case for Healing's maximum effect. Everywhere else, 5th edition goes to great lengths to leave as many options open as possible. I shudder to think how many times something is described as being subject to the GM's discretion in that book. There are also a lot of things it describes, more or less, as "be very careful about allowing this", or "you probably don't want to do this, but...". In the case of raising the maximum effect for healing, however, it just says "You can't do this". THAT is the source of my ire.

[Chris Goodwin]

Dude, it's called house rules. I got some good ones for Healing at my house rules page (one of which made it into Fantasy Hero, woohoo!). There's also an "official" entry in the FAQ regarding reset times. I don't like the FAQ entry myself, which is why I came up with my house rules, but to each their own.

 

There's a good reason for not allowing the Healing maximum to be bought up. Look at http://www.herogames.com/oldForum/Rules/000996.html

 

The ability to freely buy up the Healing maximum essentially makes any BODY damage that does not kill irrelevant. As in, may as well not even bother. Yes, I saw it happen. I'm quite happy that they reverted Healing back to the 3rd edition rules.

 

And dude. A 60 Base Point BODY Healing (6d6) can restore up to 18 BODY. What are you worried about?

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by archer

And dude. A 60 Base Point BODY Healing (6d6) can restore up to 18 BODY. What are you worried about?

 

This seems to miss the point, which is odd since you started out so well.

 

First of all, unless there's erratta and I missed it (always possible, there's a lot to read), I challenge you during a game to keep rolling those 6 dice until you get 36 and actually heal 18 Body, because that's what you'll have to do.

 

Secondly, what he's worried about is that so much of the system is horribly abusable, and left in the GM's hands. Broadly, this is a good decision: give us the tools and let us figure out how not to bang our fingers with them. Then, there is Healing, which has hard coded into it that it cannot be abused. This seems odd.

 

Still, as you say, it can be house ruled, and really is one of the few areas that I would house rule if it came up.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by GamePhil

First of all, unless there's erratta and I missed it (always possible, there's a lot to read), I challenge you during a game to keep rolling those 6 dice until you get 36 and actually heal 18 Body, because that's what you'll have to do.

 

This is ameliorated by the house rule of mine that made it, in slightly modified form, into FH. Take one level more on the Time Chart than your Healing normally takes, and you get the maximum amount you could roll.

 

Secondly, what he's worried about is that so much of the system is horribly abusable, and left in the GM's hands. Broadly, this is a good decision: give us the tools and let us figure out how not to bang our fingers with them. Then, there is Healing, which has hard coded into it that it cannot be abused. This seems odd.

 

I suspect that the alterations in Healing come from the fact that in 4e Healing was part of Aid, and in fact was the most abused part of Aid and that, at some point, even Steve Long had to draw a line.

 

But to be honest, there's nothing in the rulebook that specifically prohibits buying Cumulative Healing. Yeah, I know, Steve refers to FREd p. 75 in the FAQ, but it doesn't specifically mention Healing by name, and technically, Healing has no rules for increasing its maximum (and thus doesn't fall under the restrictions listed under the Cumulative Advantage).

 

OTOH, you could house rule it that you can buy up Healing as per Aid and that Healing is Cumulative up to its max by default. I strongly advise limiting Healing in other ways if you're going to do either of these, though (like require certain levels of Extra Time, etc.).

 

If you do allow Cumulative Healing of any kind, bear in mind that it takes, on average, two rolls to max it out. So that, effectively, two Phases of Cumulative, say, 4d6 Healing (60 Active Points) gets you 8 BODY and 24 STUN.

[Victor]

Originally posted by archer

But to be honest, there's nothing in the rulebook that specifically prohibits buying Cumulative Healing. Yeah, I know, Steve refers to FREd p. 75 in the FAQ, but it doesn't specifically mention Healing by name, and technically, Healing has no rules for increasing its maximum (and thus doesn't fall under the restrictions listed under the Cumulative Advantage).

 

You're absolutely right. I would have sworn and/or put money down that it DID mention Healing specifically, but looking again, it doesn't. Thanks for saving me the trouble of a bad bet.

 

However, I'd still rather have the option of buying a small amount of Healing with an increased Maximum Effect, though.

 

I mean, 1 die of BODY Healing (with 2x, or even 4x, ME) to one target per action phase (especially with limits that reduce the maximum rolled on that single die, frequently to 0) just plain doesn't seem abusive to me. If it were 6 dice of Simplified Healing with double it's normal ME, then sure... it's fully deserving of the big red pen. Too bad that adjudication wasn't left in the hands of GM's.

 

On the subject of making "house rules", mentioned several times above, that isn't always the answer either.

 

If this were for an NPC for my own game, or written to the existing house rules of someone else's campaign, it would likely not an issue in the first place.

 

If, as in this case, I were trying to build this spell for a generic character to play in "spur of the moment" sessions where house rules had not been clearly defined ahead of time, or at conventions (fat chance), I want something that is at least within the boundaries of the optional rules, as printed. If I want to argue over petty little details, I'd rather do it here, rather than waste the precious "at the table" time during a game session.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Victor

On the subject of making "house rules", mentioned several times above, that isn't always the answer either.

 

In fact, for me "house rules" are virtually *never* the answer, except for things like, "Clean up your own pizza boxes", myself. But as far as I knew at the time you had already rejected legal or optional rule recourse (now that this whole question of putting Cumulative on it has arisen, we'll see) it seemed your best bet.

 

I will modify how characters are built using abilities and such that are actually in the game: that's the futhest into such waters I will swim.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Victor

In the case of raising the maximum effect for healing, however, it just says "You can't do this". THAT is the source of my ire.

YES! Mine as well.

 

This is something I've been saying for years:

 

The word "can't" should not appear anywhere within the HERO System rulebooks.

 

IMO, one of the essential ideas of HERO is that anything can be done, for the right price in character points.

 

OK, so maybe you think Cumulative Healing is too abusive for 15 points per die. Is it still too abusive at 100 points per die? Now it's way too expensive (now the players, rather than the system, are being abused). Somewhere between a +1/2 and a +99 advantage, there must be a price that is "just right."

 

What if each level of Cumulative for Healing was +1 instead of +1/2? How's that?

 

Maybe Steve was suffering from some d20isease when he put that restriction on healing.