Help with the Regeneration Power?

[Vulcan]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

It's pure fiat' date=' pulled from the nether regions of a man's head covering. The Healing Power was created with a very specific set of parameters, which (by means of the Regeneration modifiers) are tossed out the window. The combination of "blah blah blah" by which you turn Healing into Regeneration is one pointed statement that says "All of that stuff under Healing? Ignore it; it now works [i']this way[/i]."

 

It's a hand wave. It's not an Advantage to add a bit of functionality to the Power; it's a fundamental change of how the Power works. And, in fact, it's not even an across-the-board change against Healing; it specifically, per several rules question answers by Steve Long, applies only to BODY. On numerous occasions, people have asked Steve, "If I change parameter X on Regeneration, can I have it apply in a different way?" and every time his answer has, essentially, been "No, Regeneration is its own beast. If the GM wants to allow it, sure, but that's not how it's written."

 

Sounds like perhaps Regeneration should become it's own power again, with it's own rules. Related to Healing? Yes. But the lack of a maximum amount healed with Regeneration seems to annoy rules purists an inordinate amount.

 

In fact, I'm going to post this in the 6E discussion under H...

[CTaylor]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Why is the hand waving pure fiat rule that has EB do 1d6 per 5 points okay, but the rules governing how Regeneration is different from normal Healing an abomination? I just don't understand it.

 

Its one thing to decide a certain power works a certain way by fiat, that's how you build rules - that's why the Regen power on its own was a superior construct.

 

When you build a power then, simply to make another power fit in it, you break its rules and say "it works this way only for this one instance," that's bad.

 

It's like saying Energy Blast costs 5 points/D6... except fire energy blasts which cost 3 and have double END cost. Just cause.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Sounds like perhaps Regeneration should become it's own power again, with it's own rules. Related to Healing? Yes. But the lack of a maximum amount healed with Regeneration seems to annoy rules purists an inordinate amount.

 

In fact, I'm going to post this in the 6E discussion under H...

 

Since I will not likely venture into that thread I'll respond here.

 

Creating a stand alone Regeneration (like 4e had) creates its own set of problems. A whole section of how it can't be used (the UBO Advantage) would have to be created. A whole section on how Healing can't be used to make a "Regeneration-like" effect would likely have to created as well if the goal (of 6e) is to "reduce confusion".

[Vulcan]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Always on for regeneration...

 

Sticky problem there. Sure, under certain circumstances it can be limiting. In a world where the regenerator would face unrelenting hostility and persecution from visibly healing, sure.

 

Not all games use that set of societal conditions. For example, Trolls (in D&D, at least) regenerate ridiculosly quickly. In Troll society (such as it is) that is the normal. So always on is not a limitation under those circumstances.

 

I suspect most games fall in between the two extremes, so -1/2 would be a bit too much in relation to the utility of healing that never stops. -1/4, perhaps?

 

It falls back to the GM. If he thinks there is jutification for a limitation, then he can allow the player can apply it. If the GM thinks there isn't, then the player can't.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Always on for regeneration...

 

Sticky problem there. Sure, under certain circumstances it can be limiting. In a world where the regenerator would face unrelenting hostility and persecution from visibly healing, sure.

 

Not all games use that set of societal conditions. For example, Trolls (in D&D, at least) regenerate ridiculosly quickly. In Troll society (such as it is) that is the normal. So always on is not a limitation under those circumstances.

 

I suspect most games fall in between the two extremes, so -1/2 would be a bit too much in relation to the utility of healing that never stops. -1/4, perhaps?

 

It falls back to the GM. If he thinks there is jutification for a limitation, then he can allow the player can apply it. If the GM thinks there isn't, then the player can't.

 

Any captured creature/character with a defacto Always On Regeneration is going to be really easy to interrogate/torture for information since the torturers wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about actually KILLING the target. That circumstance is applicable to every GENRE I can think of.

[archermoo]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Its one thing to decide a certain power works a certain way by fiat, that's how you build rules - that's why the Regen power on its own was a superior construct.

 

When you build a power then, simply to make another power fit in it, you break its rules and say "it works this way only for this one instance," that's bad.

 

It's like saying Energy Blast costs 5 points/D6... except fire energy blasts which cost 3 and have double END cost. Just cause.

 

And if there were an optional rule within Energy Blast stating that you could pay 3 points per d6 but have double normal END cost, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

 

And I still don't understand how an optional rule for changing how a power works can be perceived as "breaking the rules". An optional rule by definition will work differently than the normal rules do. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any point to it. So I fail to see how the optional Regeneration rules within Healing can be seen to be breaking anything.

 

I'm curious: Do you perceive the optional Hit Location Chart as breaking the rules of determining how much Stun a Killing Attack does?

[Vulcan]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

But is it applicable to the extent of a -1/2 limitation? Depends on how often the GM thinks the character will get captured, his psych limits (overprotective of secrets goes a long way toward making interogation more difficult), and if the character also bought Resistance (5 points spent here makes interrogation difficult. 10 points makes it nearly impossible).

 

Too many factors for there to be a single number, given the sheer usefulness of a healing power that never stops.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Here's how I look at Regeneration:

 

Optional Rules that says 1 Die heals 1 Body, that's all it will heal. Healing can be applied to ANY Characteristic or Power. So your Regeneration is now less effective than Healing. Let's try and balance it out - there's no Reuse Limit, you can use it constantly.

 

Here's where I think the mistake was made: forcing Advantages and Limitations onto the Build. Seems to stick in people's craw.

 

But those Advantages and Limitations make the Optional Rule: Regeneration work like most source material: automatically works (0END/Persistent); over short time (1 Turn); only on the owner (Self Only)

 

The 1 Turn however is a Limitation over the base assumption of the Optional Rule: can be used any time, all the time. So we put a variant of Extra Time Limitation on it that says automaticall every post-12.

 

Healing can Heal back Drained Powers if you buy Heal Energy Blast. as an example.

Regeneration cannot. Just BODY here.

Sounds like a subset Optional Rule that was tweaked to allow an Effect into the game. It didn't need a separate Power - 90% of the writeup would look like Healing.

[CTaylor]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Creating a stand alone Regeneration (like 4e had) creates its own set of problems.

 

Not any more than any other single power. You have to explain that AId can't be used to give someone a power they don't already have. You have to explain that NNDs do no stun. That's part of how a power is defined: you set up what it can and cannot do. Thats not a problem, it's a feature, that's how it is supposed to work.

 

A whole section of how it can't be used (the UBO Advantage) would have to be created. A whole section on how Healing can't be used to make a "Regeneration-like" effect would likely have to created as well if the goal (of 6e) is to "reduce confusion".

 

Healing already prohibits a regeneration-like power (which is partly why people have a problem with the current build). And personally, I don't have a problem with Usable on others regeneration but some campaigns might not like it (and they could easily say it can't be used). Like I said above though; defining what a power does and doesn't is how you write one up.

 

And I still don't understand how an optional rule for changing how a power works can be perceived as "breaking the rules".

 

Because the rules for Healing specifically say you cannot use the power in this manner. Then they go on to say "and here's how to use the rules in this manner." That's like having Transformation cover Multiform. Transformation specifically says "you cannot use transform on yourself" then the subsection of Transform called Multiform that says "and here's how to build Transform that works on yourself."

 

I see a conflict and a problem there (as do most people). You don't.

 

I see a power that was changed from the original rules of Hero for no good reason and a designer who refuses to even consider discussing it in his requests for input. I see a problem with that, too.

[Vulcan]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Not any more than any other single power. You have to explain that AId can't be used to give someone a power they don't already have. You have to explain that NNDs do no stun. That's part of how a power is defined: you set up what it can and cannot do. Thats not a problem' date=' it's a feature, that's how it is supposed to work.[/quote']

 

I'm guessing you mean "NND's do no BODY"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Healing cost 10 points per die so "+1" costs 3 points.

My first example costs 13 points before applying Advantages.

13 * 3.5 = 45.5 which rounds down to 45 per HERO rounding rules.

 

When 10 points buy 1 d6, and standard effect on 1d6 is 3, I'm reluctant to allow +1 for 3 points. Buy it 3 times and you have 1d6 (standard effect) for 9 points instead of 10. Not a big difference, though.

[CTaylor]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Thanks for gettin my back Vulcan that's what I meant!

 

And yeah I'd suggest 4 points per +1 on a 10 point power; it doesn't give you a very good deal but it adds up better in the end.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

When 10 points buy 1 d6' date=' and standard effect on 1d6 is 3, I'm reluctant to allow +1 for 3 points. Buy it 3 times and you have 1d6 (standard effect) for 9 points instead of 10. Not a big difference, though.[/quote']

 

So are you saying that you disagree with the published partial dice rules or the rounding rules or both?

 

Regardless, what does that really have to do with the current topic?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

So are you saying that you disagree with the published partial dice rules or the rounding rules or both?

 

Regardless, what does that really have to do with the current topic?

 

To your latter point, it impacts the pricing of your constructs.

 

To the former, either partial dice or standard effect should change. I'm a fan of setting standard effect at 3.5 per die and then rounding the final result down if we're using an odd number of dice. That would held with the pricing of partial dice.

 

I'd be OK with partial dice changing to be based on 1/5ths of dice. Say

 

1/5 = +1

2/5 = 1/3d6

3/5 = 1/2 d6

4/5 = 1d6 - 1

5/5 = 1d6

 

That's probably as fine as it can reasonably be broken up. That would reduce the price of +1 rather than increase it, though, so maybe it should be possible for that +1 to be a zero in some cases. Between standard effect and the difficulty in dividing costs by the average or standard effect on 1d6, it's not going to be perfect in any case. It would be simplified if standard effect and average rolled were equalized. Something to work out for 6e, perhaps.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

To your latter point, it impacts the pricing of your constructs.

 

To the former, either partial dice or standard effect should change. I'm a fan of setting standard effect at 3.5 per die and then rounding the final result down if we're using an odd number of dice. That would held with the pricing of partial dice.

 

I'd be OK with partial dice changing to be based on 1/5ths of dice. Say

 

1/5 = +1

2/5 = 1/3d6

3/5 = 1/2 d6

4/5 = 1d6 - 1

5/5 = 1d6

 

That's probably as fine as it can reasonably be broken up. That would reduce the price of +1 rather than increase it, though, so maybe it should be possible for that +1 to be a zero in some cases. Between standard effect and the difficulty in dividing costs by the average or standard effect on 1d6, it's not going to be perfect in any case. It would be simplified if standard effect and average rolled were equalized. Something to work out for 6e, perhaps.

 

 

Again, this is a totally separate issue from the Regeneration power.

 

 

My constructs were built using current 5e/5er rules to illustrate a point about those rules in particular.

 

Raising a point of contention with how those current 'standard effect' rules should be changed in future editions seems like a more appropriate topic of discussion in the 6e forum (which I choose to abstain from for the time being).

[archermoo]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Because the rules for Healing specifically say you cannot use the power in this manner. Then they go on to say "and here's how to use the rules in this manner." That's like having Transformation cover Multiform. Transformation specifically says "you cannot use transform on yourself" then the subsection of Transform called Multiform that says "and here's how to build Transform that works on yourself."

 

I see a conflict and a problem there (as do most people). You don't.

 

I see a power that was changed from the original rules of Hero for no good reason and a designer who refuses to even consider discussing it in his requests for input. I see a problem with that, too.

 

Again, you seem to be looking at Regeneration as if it were a power example rather than an optional change in the rules as to how Healing works. As I've said in the past if Healing didn't specifically prohibit how Regeneration is defined, there wouldn't be any reason to have a set of optional rules governing how it operated. It would in actuality be the example power you seem to insist on already treating it as.

 

But it isn't an example power. It is a optional modification of the Healing rules. By definition that means that it will work differently than the base Healing rules allow for. So I can't see how "It doesn't things specifically prohibited by the Healing rules" is a valid objection to it. If it didn't do things specifically disallowed by the Healing rules, there wouldn't be any reason for the optional Regeneration rules to exist.

 

Multiform works in a very different way than Transform does, so there is little to no overlap in how those powers are defined. On the other hand there is a great deal of overlap between how Regeneration and Healing work, so it make sense to have Regeneration defined as a special case of Healing, with its own special rules. That way all of the points of similarity get taken care of automatically, and the only things that need to get noted are the exceptions. Which just take a couple of paragraphs.

 

And I disagree that "most people" agree with you. There are certainly some vocal people here on the Hero boards that do, but that doesn't mean that they represent most Hero players.

[CTaylor]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Like I said, it doesn't bother you, good for you. You asked why it's a problem to so many people and I explained it. You apparently disagree with the reasons, but that's why people are displeased with the system. I hope Steve takes a different position on this than you - in fact I hope he bends on his "I won't even discuss the matter despite claiming to be open to anything" position regarding Regen and Instant Change.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

I guess what Archermoo (and myself) don't completely understand from your POV on this is why if Regeneration is a seperate Power Entry it's better than if Regeneration is explained as an Alternate Mechanic to the Healing Power entry?

 

Would it make a difference if the Alternate Mechanic went a little further in the Alternate aspect and simply incorporated some (or all) of the Advantages and Limitations directly into the Alternate/Optional Rule? But to still leave it under Healing since both Powers do essentially the same thing.

 

Healing's base Mechanic is to restore a Power or Characteristic to Starting Values after they have been reduced in some manner. Regeneration is designed to work specifically with the Body Characteristic in a slightly different manner. At least, that is how myself (and I believe Archermoo, though I don't want to speak directly for him) see the Healing/Regeneration dynamic.

[archermoo]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Like I said' date=' it doesn't bother you, good for you. You asked why it's a problem to so many people and I explained it. You apparently disagree with the reasons, but that's why people are displeased with the system. I hope Steve takes a different position on this than you - in fact I hope he bends on his "I won't even discuss the matter despite claiming to be open to anything" position regarding Regen and Instant Change.[/quote']

 

Well, it isn't just a matter of it not bothering me. I still don't have any idea why it bothers anyone, other than "I preferred it being the other way". "It breaks the Healing rules" isn't really a valid objection, since it by definition needs to 'break' the rules for Healing before there is any point in including it as an optional variant of Healing.

 

Which brings me back to my original statement: I don't understand the objections. You haven't bothered to address any of the points I've made, so I guess I'll just be staying in the dark. *shrug*

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Well' date=' it isn't just a matter of it not bothering me. I still don't have any idea why it bothers anyone, other than "I preferred it being the other way". "It breaks the Healing rules" isn't really a valid objection, since it by definition needs to 'break' the rules for Healing before there is any point in including it as an optional variant of Healing.[/quote']

 

If it used to be a separate Power, and it works as if it were a separate Power, why insist on having it be part of Healing?

[pinecone]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

My own dislike for the "new" Regen is based on the same sort of reasoning....I build characters all the time to avoid boredom. So I like to carry the "Rules" in my head.

 

Old regen 10 per...got it.

 

New Regen "It's a base power with a bunch of adds and disadds, and the math is a little wonky, I need to reference the book every blinkin time to double check"

 

That I don't "got", it strikes me as complication for it's own sake. So I don't like it.

 

Style mostly, but usability as well.... I don't like complexity for it's own sake...

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

I have lately been of the opinion that an ability that is common in source should be represented by a single Power. We have lots of examples of that. Until 5th edition, Regeneration was one.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Common to WHICH source?

 

Surely we can come up with literally hundreds of 'common effects in source material' across all the genres HERO can emulate.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

I have lately been of the opinion that an ability that is common in source should be represented by a single Power. We have lots of examples of that. Until 5th edition' date=' Regeneration was one.[/quote']

 

Been thinking on this because I keep waffling between thinking it's a great idea and absolute horror.

 

The problem I see (beyond the sheer number of genres we'd have to seriously look at for common effects in source) is it tends to include SFX into the Powers.

 

The ability to 'regenerate' is (once you strip SFX) the ability to repair damage very quickly. whether it's a bio-organism healing rapidly or a nano-construct rebuilding itself nearly instantly.

 

So - we turn to our nifty Tool Kit and we need to Heal. but faster than normal. So the Healing Power needs some modification, since it works fastish, but not as fast as we'd like. And it has other restrictions on it that prevent this. There's no real work around for it - at least not one consummate with effectiveness vs cost.

 

Leaves us two options:

An Optional SubRule

A New Base Power

 

Your idea would certainly simplify a lot of Character Creation right down to choosing from a list.

 

On the other hand it would muddle that list with SFX and Mechanics mushed into one. Where do we start to draw the line between a Base Power Cited In Source and a Power Build Cited In Source?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

 

Again, you seem to be looking at Regeneration as if it were a power example rather than an optional change in the rules as to how Healing works. As I've said in the past if Healing didn't specifically prohibit how Regeneration is defined, there wouldn't be any reason to have a set of optional rules governing how it operated. It would in actuality be the example power you seem to insist on already treating it as.

 

But it isn't an example power. It is a optional modification of the Healing rules. By definition that means that it will work differently than the base Healing rules allow for. So I can't see how "It doesn't things specifically prohibited by the Healing rules" is a valid objection to it. If it didn't do things specifically disallowed by the Healing rules, there wouldn't be any reason for the optional Regeneration rules to exist.

 

Well, I think it's a little misleading to emphasize the "optional" nature of the Regeneration rules. Every published character and creature that I've seen in Fifth Edition books that has this exclusively self-healing capacity has it built to these parameters. If we had one or more reasonably common examples of it being done differently, it would be easier to accept that this is not intended to be the "official" way to build Regeneration.

 

If these rules were truly optional, and designed for greater flexibility, the source books would allow for and even encourage variations. Why can't someone leave off Self Only to Regenerate someone else by touch? Why can't the Extra Time be reduced for faster Regen? Why can't it cost Endurance, or not be Persistent so someone would have to be conscious to use it? Why can't it apply to Characteristics other than BODY? IMHO the real reason is because 5E Regeneration is a transparent attempt to grandfather the very specific effect of 4E Regeneration via a different construct. As long as that's the case the comparisons to 4E Regen are inevitable.

 

Consider this: we want the Power to Heal a set amount of BODY, so we make it Standard Effect (1 BODY per 1d6 isn't exactly accurate, but close enough). We want it to not cost END, so it buys Reduced Endurance. We don't want it to shut off when the possessor is unconscious, so we apply Persistent. It's supposed to work gradually rather than instantly, so takes Extra Time. It's only supposed to work for the possessor of the Power, so of course it's Self Only. To Heal someone regardless of the amount of damage he takes, which default Healing doesn't do... well, there you go. Every rules-legal permutation of Healing to make it work in the desired fashion is accounted for with the appropriate Modifier, except one of the most important ones, which makes the Power more effective than in its base form. The illogic of going through more steps than with 4E Regen to recreate its effect, yet not accounting for the desired result, is what I object to most about the current construct.