Halving healing per RAW?

[dsatow]

Spot-on.  This is one relatively common scenario Hugh just flippantly ignored or took for granted -- where STUN and END recovery do NOT occur rapidly.  (My scenario, above, is another scenario ... where STUN recovery simply doesn't occur rapidly enough.)

 

If you are waking a person from unconsciousness, stun aid works much better at 6pt per die.

[Hugh Neilson]

The unqualified, blanket statement of yours that I just quoted is patently false in 5e games -- wherein Healing and Aid are both 10 CP per 1d6 without regard to the halving rule.  Keep in mind that while I'm familiar/fluent with 6e, I'm a 5er player and, as a reminder, this thread pertains to both 5e and 6e games (as evidenced by the fact that I took the time to quote from both in the original post) ... and you made a blanket statement applicable to both.  Thus, I didn't ignore your statement, at all.  Rather, it's simply not a correct/accurate statement for both 5e and 6e games.

 

While you mentioned Aid's fade rate, you did it in terms of out-of-combat scenarios ... which seems to be how you're thinking of using both powers.  In combat, the fade rate means using Aid has an additional cost in the form of -required- repeat uses (to match the effects of Healing wherein the Healed points didn't fade in the same amount of time) in multi-turn combat scenarios ...which are quite common in Heroic games consisting of lower SPD characters.  Such re-use of in-combat Aid may be a fair tradeoff when Aid is 6CP per 1d6 as in 6e, but it's a bad deal in 5e where Aid is the same 10CP per 1d6 as Healing.

The discussion was on "in combat utility", which is where I was focusing. Once Healing has been used once, absent an advantage which reduces the re-use increment, it's not going to be useful again on the same day. The Aid can be used again, in a second, third and fourth combat. One use of Healing with an average or above average roll makes it useless for the rest of the day. Aid can be used twice in a single encounter to maximize its value.

 

I don't have 5e available for quick reference, but as I recall, Aid did not cost END in 5e, but Healing did. An END cost has a lot more meaning in combat than out of combat, and provides a disadvantage to Healing if my recollection is correct.

 

But let's compare 4d6 Healing to 4d6 STUN for use in combat.

 

- The average roll will be the same, obviously.

 

- Aid can be used a second time immediately for a greater effect. Healing less so (you can try again when your first roll sucked, or when it was average in hopes of a better roll, but 2 Aid rolls should max out at a total of 24 STUN - it will take a lot longer to max out Healing).

 

- Aid has a fade rate, although each fade is offset by a recovery. Some advantage to Healing, but the main reason either was considered powerful in combat was the ability to assist a KOd teammate. As long as the recovery offsets the fade, the teammate is still in the battle.

 

- Aid will be useful in multiple combats over the course of a day. Healing will not. You could reduce the re-use rate for Healing, but then Aid again rolls more points for the same AP.

 

- Aid can exceed the starting maximum. Healing cannot. I can Aid my teammate in advance of the battle, but Healing will only help in the current battle if I sacrifice an action I could have used for something else. After the combat, STUN comes back rapidly enough that using Healing would be a waste.

 

I remain of the view, even in 5e, that STUN or END healing is a weak choice compared to STUN or END Aid.

[Hugh Neilson]

BTW, how is 5e in any way relevant to halving the effect of healing on STUN and END? That only started in 6e, to mitigate the much reduced CP cost of those characteristics.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think healing with Aid is a fascinating concept; for stun at least it would work, but I would have problems as a GM with it because, you know, its using a cheaper power to do what an existing power already does...

[Hugh Neilson]

I think Aid and Healing both serve a purpose. Aid is superior at dealing with STUN and END loss only because the cost of Healing is sufficient to justify restoring stats that would not rapidly recover on their own.

[dsatow]

Personally, the errata I believe corrects one issue and screws up another.  Simplified healing should heal a max 6 points of stun.  I believe the errata penalizes stun twice since stun costs 2 stun per 1 cp.  This is due to the "defensive characteristics" for the most part were halved from the original game as noted by previous posters.  Its an easy enough mistake and I pointed it out to Steve in a private message but he seems to have the flu and said he'd look at it later.

Just got a reply back from Steve and it is a max of 6 points of Stun from 1d6 simplified healing.

[Surrealone]

BTW, how is 5e in any way relevant to halving the effect of healing on STUN and END? That only started in 6e, to mitigate the much reduced CP cost of those characteristics.

 

Since you missed it in the very first lines of the very first post of this thread (red and bold emphasis added by me this time)...

 

Per 5ER pg. 110:

Defense Powers: To balance the usefulness of defenses in the Hero System, the effect of any Adjustment Power that increases or decreases PD, ED, any Defense Power, and the like is halved.

 

Simplified Healing was a thing in 5e, so if you combine the above with Steve Long's recent clarification about Simplified Healing (which makes no mention of being specific to 6e and which I also quoted in the very first post of this thread -- and which is also linked, below), then the intent of the above quoted 5er RAW is sufficiently clarified to match the intent (and actual words) of 6e RAW (which I also quoted in the first post -- which you can go back and re-read if you like) when it comes to STUN and BODY.

 

 

 

 

Just got a reply back from Steve and it is a max of 6 points of Stun from 1d6 simplified healing.

You may need to be careful as to how you interpret the word 'max', here.  Yes, 6pts is the max on the die roll, but only 3 of it would apply to the character due to the halving rule, as per Mr. Long's recent ruling (with spelled out math) here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/94672-simplified-healing-followup/?hl=healing

 

I suggest reading that thread as he talks about the max and then about that max when applied to a character ... being halved.

[Christopher R Taylor]

It was always pretty muddy in 5e, while 6e's text changed to clarify that muddiness ... specifically by spelling out STUN and BODY as Defense Powers.

 

I suspect stun, body, and Endurance were never considered defensive powers until 6th edition, and the change was almost entirely because the costs were reduced so significantly.

[Cantriped]

Simplified Healing was a thing in 5e, so if you combine the above with Steve Long's recent clarification about Simplified Healing (which makes no mention of being specific to 6e and which I also quoted in the very first post of this thread -- and which is also linked, below)...

Steve Long didn't specify editions because he only answers 6th edition rules questions now; and only those regarding the two-volume 6th edition core rulebooks (and their supplements). He'll have nothing to do with CC/FHC, and only makes reference to 5th edition supplements when there isn't a 6th edition equivalent. If you need an official answer to a 5th edition or CC/FHC question, you are SOL.

[Surrealone]

I think most reasonable people would agree that the intent in 5e matches that of 6e -- and that 6e simply clarified what was present (albeit, very muddy) in 5e.  The quoted RAW in the first post in this thread is what really drives the 5e intent and 6e clarification thereof ... home.

 

That said, I started this thread to get a feel for whether people actively enforced the halving rule (on top of the Healing cost being doubled) from 5e and onward.  It seems that a few do ... but that many don't in order to make Healing more reasonable (cost-wise) and prolific (game-wise).

[Chris Goodwin]

The halving rule for defensive abilities has been in the game since the 2nd-3rd edition era.  It has only been in 6th edition that it explicitly applied to BODY, STUN, and END.  

 

Healing has changed edition by edition enough that I think it's safe to say that the intent was that the halving didn't apply to Healing until 6th edition..  

 

A brief history: 

 

• 1984 - 2nd/3rd edition era.  Healing first appears, in the Champions III supplement.  It was effectively Simplified Healing only.  There was no separate Adjustment Powers category.  The halving rule for defensive abilities appears in the same book, but of the characteristics, only PD and ED are specified.  Various Powers to which it applies are called out, but Healing is not one of them.
• 1985 - FH 1st edition.  Aid first appears here (it is effectively what we now call Succor or Boost).  Healing and Restore are separate Powers; Healing is BODY/STUN only, and is effectively Simplified Healing.  Restore is used to return Characteristic points lost to Drain (including Destroy), and also Characteristic points lost to impairing/disabling wounds.  I don't recall whether the halving of defensive abilities was called out here, but I don't believe it was.
• 1989 - 4th edition.  Adjustment Powers first appear as a category with unified mechanics.  Healing as a separate Power is removed, and is treated as an Aid build.  The idea of Simplified Healing is first mentioned.  Halving rule appears here as well, still not specifying BODY, STUN, END.
• 2002 - 5th edition.  Healing is now a separate Power again, with Simplified Healing as an option.  The halving rule appears here, with wording largely unchanged from 4th edition.  
• 2009 - 6th edition.  Halving rule now explicitly applies to BODY, STUN, END.  Cost of those stats reduced:  BODY 1 per point (from 2 per point), STUN 1 per 2 points (from 1 per point), END 1 per 5 points (from 1 per 2 points).  
• 2016 - various clarifications to the effect that Healing, including Simplified Healing, is part of the halving rule.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't recall whether the halving of defensive abilities was called out here, but I don't believe it was.

 

 

Not in my copy.  In fact, the halving rule is not mentioned in either Drain or "Destroy" (long-term drain) for that matter.

[Surrealone]

The halving rule for defensive abilities has been in the game since the 2nd-3rd edition era.  It has only been in 6th edition that it explicitly applied to BODY, STUN, and END.  

 

Healing has changed edition by edition enough that I think it's safe to say that the intent was that the halving didn't apply to Healing until 6th edition..  

I agree with your assertion that "it has only beein 6th edition that it explicitly applied to BODY, STUN, and END," specifically because of your use of the word 'explicitly'.  However, I do NOT think it is "safe to say that intent was that the halving rule didn't  apply to Healing until 6th edition."

 

​Why?  If you want to look closely at 4th Edition's halving rule, see ​4e pg. 54

​To balance the usefulness of defenses in the HERO system, the effect of any Adjustment Powers that affect a defense (decrease it or increase it), are halved.  Defenses include: PD, ED, Force Field, Armor, Damage Resistance, Mental Defense, Flash Defense, Power Defense, Lack of Weakness, Presence (PRE), and Knockback Resistance.

Note that the above is a definitive list that leaves nothing to interpretation.  (Also note that it includes PRE!)  It's also worth noting that while Simplified Healing's workings/mechanics are described within Aid's description, it does not have a name at this point ... and isn't a form of Healing since, as noted above by Chris, Healing doesn't exist as a separate power in this edition.

 

Then in 5er a shift is made to something far more open to interpretation ... see 5ER pg. 110:

​Defense Powers: To balance the usefulness of defenses in the Hero System, the effect of any Adjustment Power that increases or decreases PD, ED, any Defense Power, and the like is halved.  EGO, PRE, Desolidification, and similar abilities do not count as "Defensive Powers" for this purpose even though they have defensive functions.

Here we see PRE and EGO are deliberately excluded, while PD and ED are still included.  BODY and STUN are left up to GM interpretation, with some GM's treating them like PD and ED ... while other GMs treat them like EGO and PRE.

 

Finally, in 6e another shift is made into something definitive and closed to interpretation, again. For those who insist on using archaic, out-of-print materials, see 6e Vol1 page 135:

​Adjustment Powers applied against Defense Powers and some related defensive abilities (including CON, DCV, DMCV, PD, ED, RED, END, BODY, and STUN) have only half effect.  See 6E1 141 for more information.

Here we see an explicit list, again ... this time with nothing left to interpretation.

 

For those who prefer to rely on current, in-print materials, see CC pg. 46:

ADJUSTING DEFENSE POWERS

The effect of any Adjustment Power that increases or decreases any of the following is halved: any Defense Power; the Characteristics CON, DCV, DMCV, PD, ED, REC, END, BODY, and STUN; and any other ability the GM designates as primarily defensive in nature.

Here we also see an explicit list with nothing left to interpretation ... but with the usual GM caveat tacked on for good measure.

 

 

I realize that 5e's text is about as clear as mud, ... but the trend seems pretty obvious to me, as 5e is where the halving rule first applied broadly and interpretively to 'any Defense Power and the like' instead of using a definitive list.  Then in 6e we see clarification (via a return to a definitive but expanded list) of what was previously left open to interpretation ... presumably to preclude the need to interpret the muddy waters of 5e on this topic.  It is also worth noting that 5e is where Healing went back to being a separate power and where the term Simplified Healing first appeared in the official rule set, if I'm not mistaken...

 

Thus, I peg the intent of the halving rule to apply to BODY & STUN in 5e ... with the actual clarification following in 6e after folks were tired of deltas in interpretations on the matter in 5e.  That's my (logical, I believe) rationale for my stance, but obviously I can't prove it since Steve Long doesn't go into design philosophy, here...

[Christopher R Taylor]

Presence is pretty easy to understand as a defense, its what defends, literally, against presence attacks.  That doesn't imply or suggest damage stats like stun or body necessarily are part of the list.  In fact, if you asked 100 Champions players back then 100 would laugh in your face, because they aren't defenses at all.  They're the stuff that gets reduced after you get through the defenses.  Again, they were added solely because their costs were halved (or more in the case of END), thus effectively doubling the power of healing applied to them in 6th edition, I'm certain of it.  Its a kind of clunky fix, but it works.

[Chris Goodwin]

I agree with your assertion that "it has only beein 6th edition that it explicitly applied to BODY, STUN, and END," specifically because of your use of the word 'explicitly'.  However, I do NOT think it is "safe to say that intent was that the halving rule didn't  apply to Healing until 6th edition."

I should have said Simplified Healing. Still, given the amount of changes it underwent, Healing was very much in flux between 3rd and 5th editions, even between 5th and 5th Revised, and I don't think it's possible to point to a given intent in relation.  I don't see how you can claim there was any intent at all around Healing prior to then.  Edit to add:  I don't ever remember in any game I ever played, under any GM, in every era other than 6th edition, that Healing, Simplified or otherwise, would have been halved when applied to defensive abilities, and I know for sure we never considered BODY, STUN, or END to be defensive abilities for halving purposes.

 

(Edited again:  I want to clarify my above statement.  I don't think you can point to a trend of intent across editions regarding Healing.  I think within any particular edition, the intent was pretty clear: the amount rolled on the dice is the amount Healed.)

 

However, I'm going to cheat here, a little.  I went back and checked my SETAC notes.  The explicit addition of CON, BODY, STUN, END, and REC to the list of defensive abilities for Adjustment Power purposes happened during the SETAC discussions. While I don't want to try to divine Steve Long's intent from that, and I want to emphasize that I'm not speaking for him... given that he was the sole writer and developer of 5th edition I'd guess by observation that he didn't consider them to fall into that category until then.  

[Surrealone]

That doesn't imply or suggest damage stats like stun or body necessarily are part of the list.  In fact, if you asked 100 Champions players back then 100 would laugh in your face, because they aren't defenses at all.  They're the stuff that gets reduced after you get through the defenses.  Again, they were added solely because their costs were halved (or more in the case of END), thus effectively doubling the power of healing applied to them in 6th edition, I'm certain of it.  Its a kind of clunky fix, but it works.

Read the parts of your text I highlighted above in red (and only the red parts) as if they form a complete sentence.  I agree with that sentiment 100% ... and it's as true in 6th Edition as it was in earlier versions, which gives me lots of pause when treating BODY/STUN as defenses when they clearly are not.

 

That said, I think I am just now grasping the use of the halving rule in 6e to keep Healing from being 2x as effective as it was in 5e due 6e Characteristic cost reductions.  Thank you VERY much for pointing that out, as I think that validates your perspective that the halving rule's application to BODY/STUN probably -was- specific to 6e.  I also agree with you that the 'fix' is clunky.

 

Actually, I'll go so far as to call it unnecessary (IMHO), as a doubling in Healing effectiveness due to a Characteristic cost reduction in 6e would equate to a return to 4e healing (Aid) effectiveness ... which I thought was just fine. Frankly, I preferred 4e Aid to any rendition of Aid and/or Healing I've seen since, as it was cheap, simple, and effective to manage.  (At 5pts per 1d6 Aid, it was cheap enough for healing back damage one has taken to actually be a legit defense, by itself, with no SFX handwaving for Resistant Protection to mimic Healing (SFX-wise) or other unnecessarily complicated gobbeldy gook needed.  That approach could yield some interesting builds you just don't see, anymore.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Simplified Healing was a thing in 5e, so if you combine the above with Steve Long's recent clarification about Simplified Healing (which makes no mention of being specific to 6e and which I also quoted in the very first post of this thread -- and which is also linked, below), then the intent of the above quoted 5er RAW is sufficiently clarified to match the intent (and actual words) of 6e RAW (which I also quoted in the first post -- which you can go back and re-read if you like) when it comes to STUN and BODY.

Nope, but addressed later.

 

You may need to be careful as to how you interpret the word 'max', here. Yes, 6pts is the max on the die roll, but only 3 of it would apply to the character due to the halving rule, as per Mr. Long's recent ruling (with spelled out math) here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/94672-simplified-healing-followup/?hl=healing

 

I suggest reading that thread as he talks about the max and then about that max when applied to a character ... being halved.

That would be 3 Character Points, which is 6 STUN in 6e. As has been noted, Steve does not answer questions on pre-6e rules any more. Hence the name of his forum, HERO System 6th Edition Rules Questions, and its tagline, Post here for answers to your HERO System 6th Edition rules questions. Are there other game systems that provide similar Q&A on older editions of their games that they no longer sell? I think most restrict those efforts to their current product, just as Steve transitioned from 5e to 5er, then to 6e (which, at least to his vision, is the full writeup of the abbreviated rules in FHC, CC and MHI).

 

I suspect stun, body, and Endurance were never considered defensive powers until 6th edition, and the change was almost entirely because the costs were reduced so significantly.

I can confirm that was discussed in the SETAC discussions on changing the costs.

 

As to why the costs were changed, simply put, REC, STUN and END were overpriced. It was generally not common to buy up STUN and REC - buy defenses instead. Buy up END and REC? No, just buy reduced END. This exacerbated the perceived bargain of STR and CON figured characteristics - they looked really sweet if you assumed the Figured's were actually worth their point cost, but the lack of players paying that price indicated they were overpriced.

 

BOD just got lumped in, and DEX really should have been matched to PRE and INT (I used to think all should have been 1 point, but I think they should all be 2 points given the comparison to the price of skill levels that do less than half of what +5 to the stat does - a topic for another thread, though).

 

This is getting long, so I will chunk it up into a few posts.

[Hugh Neilson]

That said, I started this thread to get a feel for whether people actively enforced the halving rule (on top of the Healing cost being doubled) from 5e and onward. It seems that a few do ... but that many don't in order to make Healing more reasonable (cost-wise) and prolific (game-wise).

Which has definitely been a good discussion (it highlighted why STUN healing is overpriced for me), but one completely irrelevant to 5e as neither STUN nor END nor REC nor BOD were "Defense Powers" in 5e. They were not included in the abilities Adjustment Powers had half effect on.

 

I agree with your assertion that "it has only beein 6th edition that it explicitly applied to BODY, STUN, and END," specifically because of your use of the word 'explicitly'. However, I do NOT think it is "safe to say that intent was that the halving rule didn't apply to Healing until 6th edition."

From the SETAC discussions, there was no belief these stats were subject to the halving rule in 5e. No one thought they were, so this was not something unclear going in. I believe that is because, in 4e, there was that definitive list which you cited. In 5e, we instead had the category of "Defense Powers" which were then referred to in Adjustment Powers as the list of Defense Powers removed the need for a list under Adjustment Powers.

 

Then in 5er a shift is made to something far more open to interpretation ... see 5ER pg. 110:

Defense Powers: To balance the usefulness of defenses in the Hero System, the effect of any Adjustment Power that increases or decreases PD, ED, any Defense Power, and the like is halved. EGO, PRE, Desolidification, and similar abilities do not count as "Defensive Powers" for this purpose even though they have defensive functions.

Note that "Defense Powers" is a category, while "Defensive Powers" seems like a description, likely taken from the long-time use of that term in the Aborting a Phase rules.

 

This is really similar to 6e, v1, p 141, where we see:

 

Defense Powers: To balance the usefulness of defenses in the HERO System, the effect of any Adjustment Power that increases or decreases any of the following is halved: any Defense Power; the Characteristics CON, DCV, DMCV, PD, ED,REC, END, BODY, and STUN; and any other ability the GM designates as primarily defensive in nature. EGO, PRE, Desolidification, and similar abilities do not count as “defensive abilities” for this purpose even though they have defensive functions.

All those green words are unchanged from 5e. Steve changed the phrasing a bit due to there being so many characteristics now included, I believe. He also got more specific about "anything the GM designates", and used "abilities" instead of "powers", I suspect because "Defense Powers" are a category and "Defensive Powers" are not and this better differentiated them.

[Hugh Neilson]

So where does that leave us?

 

I think most reasonable people would agree that the intent in 5e matches that of 6e -- and that 6e simply clarified what was present (albeit, very muddy) in 5e. The quoted RAW in the first post in this thread is what really drives the 5e intent and 6e clarification thereof ... home.

I suggest that 5e and 5er meant what it said - PD, ED and Defense Powers -that is, the powers specifically labeled as Defense Powers. You quote this yourself below. I think most reasonable people who read the text on Adjustment Powers which you cite below would conclude that "PD, ED and Defense Powers" means just that, and is not expanded to include STUN or END any more than it includes EGO, PRE or Desolidification.

 

I realize that 5e's text is about as clear as mud, ... but the trend seems pretty obvious to me, as 5e is where the halving rule first applied broadly and interpretively to 'any Defense Power and the like' instead of using a definitive list. Then in 6e we see clarification (via a return to a definitive but expanded list) of what was previously left open to interpretation ... presumably to preclude the need to interpret the muddy waters of 5e on this topic. It is also worth noting that 5e is where Healing went back to being a separate power and where the term Simplified Healing first appeared in the official rule set, if I'm not mistaken...

 

Thus, I peg the intent of the halving rule to apply to BODY & STUN in 5e ... with the actual clarification following in 6e after folks were tired of deltas in interpretations on the matter in 5e. That's my (logical, I believe) rationale for my stance, but obviously I can't prove it since Steve Long doesn't go into design philosophy, here...

I submit that your suggestion that "Defense Power" in 5e was a broad item open to interpretation is the fatal flaw. I believe that, just as in 6e, “Defense Powers” were a category of powers in 5e. Powers were either on the list, or they were not – no interpretation required.

 

BOD, STUN et al were not on the list because they were not subject to the halving rule in 5e. The only thing that remains unclear to me is how you gathered they were halved in 5e. I have never seen anyone make that assertion before, and I saw plenty of Adjustment Powers that applied to STUN, BOD, etc. in the pre-6e days, with no shortage of comments on them.

 

I don't believe any 5e/5er power build ever suggested the halving rule applied - I would think most Resurrection builds would fail if the halving rule did apply in 5e.

 

For that matter, 5e Regeneration selected 2 CP of Regen for the same cost as 1d6 Healing. Regen being unlimited, it seems like that rebuts your conclusion Healing was halved when applied to BOD, as Regeneration (with unlimited BOD per day) was clearly more useful than 1d6 of Standard Effect Healing.

 

 

I can't think of anything in 5e that would have suggested STUN and BOD were "Defense Powers" under RAW for purposes of adjustment powers.

[dsatow]

Since you missed it in the very first lines of the very first post of this thread (red and bold emphasis added by me this time)...

 

Per 5ER pg. 110:

 

Simplified Healing was a thing in 5e, so if you combine the above with Steve Long's recent clarification about Simplified Healing (which makes no mention of being specific to 6e and which I also quoted in the very first post of this thread -- and which is also linked, below), then the intent of the above quoted 5er RAW is sufficiently clarified to match the intent (and actual words) of 6e RAW (which I also quoted in the first post -- which you can go back and re-read if you like) when it comes to STUN and BODY.

 

 

 

 

You may need to be careful as to how you interpret the word 'max', here.  Yes, 6pts is the max on the die roll, but only 3 of it would apply to the character due to the halving rule, as per Mr. Long's recent ruling (with spelled out math) here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/94672-simplified-healing-followup/?hl=healing

 

I suggest reading that thread as he talks about the max and then about that max when applied to a character ... being halved.

I had read it and private messaged him about his answer.  He noted he had accidentally adjusted the stun while under the influence of the flu (at least that is what I believe). [note: In my message I got page numbers confused which is why he question part one]

 

Steve Long

Decuple Millennial Master

• 
• Administrators
• 
• 16,660 posts

Sent Today, 07:10 AM

OK, I seem to have solved my posting problem. 

 

1. I’m not following you on this question. The example on 6E1 232 involves two characters with forms of Healing 2d6. The numbers 9 and 18 don’t occur in the example, and unless I’m missing something I don’t see how they’re relevant. But it’s possible my brain’s still a little fried. 

 

2. You are correct — the 20 STUN in the text is right, but the 6 BODY should be 3 BODY as indicated in the Errata.

[Surrealone]

So where does that leave us?

 

I submit that your suggestion that "Defense Power" in 5e was a broad item open to interpretation is the fatal flaw. I believe that, just as in 6e, “Defense Powers” were a category of powers in 5e. Powers were either on the list, or they were not – no interpretation required.

Actually, I think the fatal flaw wasn't 'Defense Power' but was (as I emphasized in red, above ... and here, again): ''any Defense Power and the like'.  It was the 'and the like' that I feel is the unclear issue in 5e ... specifically because PD/ED are treated one way (the same as Defense Powers) while PRE and EGO are not.  So which way should BODY and STUN be treated?  That's left entirely up to the GM because of the flimsy 'and the like' language that was used for 5e.

 

Like I said ... about as clear as mud in 5e...

 

Regardless, Chris cleared up the rationale for the halving rule applying to certain definitively named Characteristics in 6e for me with it being a 'fix' to keep healing from becoming 2x as effective due to the cost reductions of those characteristics.  That said, I still scratch my head at the decision, because 4e Aid pricing wasn't absurd and, in fact, encouraged Aid/healing use.  5e and later Aid/Healing pricing absolutely discouraged it (compared to 4e) for some reason... despite the fact that I don't recall seeing people flocking to play healers because they were overpowered or broken in some way.  That always baffled me a bit...

[dsatow]

Steve has updated his post at http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/94672-simplified-healing-followup/ with correct stun info

[Surrealone]

Steve has updated his post at http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/94672-simplified-healing-followup/ with correct stun info

 

 

Well now I'm really confused.  The relevant portion of Steve's response at the above link reads (blue, red, and green emphasis added by me):

 

 

In the case of Simplified Healing, the maximum that a character can roll on the dice is 6 STUN per die and 2 BODY per die. Given that both Characteristics are subject to the “halving” rule for “defensive Characteristics,” that amount gets cut in half after the roll, of course.

 

So in the case of Simplified Healing 4d6, the maximum is 24 STUN, 8 BODY. When applied to a character, that would result in 24 STUN, 4 BODY being Healed.

 

Ok, so in blue we see the halving rule still applies, but in red we see that STUN was not halved ... while in green we see that BODY was halved.

 

This doesn't make sense to me.  Can someone explain WTF I am missing?

[dsatow]

Well now I'm really confused.  The relevant portion of Steve's response at the above link reads (blue, red, and green emphasis added by me):

 

 

Ok, so in blue we see the halving rule still applies, but in red we see that STUN was not halved ... while in green we see that BODY was halved.

 

This doesn't make sense to me.  Can someone explain WTF I am missing?

 

Simply put, the Stun was already halved.  1d6 of healing heals 1d6 worth of character points.  Against say INT which has a cost of 1 INT per cp, this would make 1d6 healing heal a maximum of 6 INT.  Against STUN, which has a cost of 0.5 cp per STUN, 1d6 of healing would (before the halving) heal a max 12 points of stun but after the halving drops this down to a max of 6.

 

Simplified healing, still heals the same amount of STUN, so the the maximum amount healed after halving is 6 points.  What simplified healing does do is allow the healing character to heal a little bit of BODY along with the STUN.  In 5th edition and earlier, this would be on the average 1 BODY per die.  But Steve clarification is that Simplified Healing is not Healing BODY directly but healing character points of BODY (this is different than 5th and earlier editions).  1d6 of Simplified healing would (if a 6 was rolled) max out at 2 character points of BODY.  Before halving, 2 Character Points would heal 2 BODY, but after Halving, it heals only 1 BODY.  As such, 4d6 of Simplified healing can heal a maximum of 24 STUN and 4 BODY and ON THE AVERAGE will heal 14 STUN and 2 BODY(assuming an average roll on the first roll).

[jdounis]

Simply put, the Stun was already halved.  1d6 of healing heals 1d6 worth of character points.  Against say INT which has a cost of 1 INT per cp, this would make 1d6 healing heal a maximum of 6 INT.  Against STUN, which has a cost of 0.5 cp per STUN, 1d6 of healing would (before the halving) heal a max 12 points of stun but after the halving drops this down to a max of 6.

 

Simplified healing, still heals the same amount of STUN, so the the maximum amount healed after halving is 6 points.  What simplified healing does do is allow the healing character to heal a little bit of BODY along with the STUN.  In 5th edition and earlier, this would be on the average 1 BODY per die.  But Steve clarification is that Simplified Healing is not Healing BODY directly but healing character points of BODY (this is different than 5th and earlier editions).  1d6 of Simplified healing would (if a 6 was rolled) max out at 2 character points of BODY.  Before halving, 2 Character Points would heal 2 BODY, but after Halving, it heals only 1 BODY.  As such, 4d6 of Simplified healing can heal a maximum of 24 STUN and 4 BODY and ON THE AVERAGE will heal 14 STUN and 2 BODY(assuming an average roll on the first roll).

I think its just an arithmetic mistake in Steve's answer, Simplified Healing specifically heals half the amount shown on dice in STUN and BODY ala normal damage with the new errata, not Character Points in 6E.