05-20-2010, 09:26 AM | #81 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Quote:
As a GM, I can say yes to things. But this is not a thing I'm going to say yes to. I have no desire to try and turn Regeneration into VRH unartfully, when I can just use VRH. Especially since they are not the same thing. |
|
05-20-2010, 09:31 AM | #82 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Quote:
...If you want the mechanics of VRH, well, I see your point. But why do you insist on charging more than 5 points more than they're worth?
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
05-20-2010, 11:33 AM | #83 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Quote:
As a Power: Innate Attack 2(Huge Piercing) [16], Breakable (DR 4, -15%, SM -5, -10%), Can Be Stolen (Quick Contest, -30%), Inaccurate -15%, 1min prep required, -20%. Increased 1/2 Range 10x (+15%), Increased Max Range 5x (+10%). Total Cost: 16, -65% = 6cp Total Cost using Multiplicative Mods: 16, +25%, -80% = 4cp And what happens if you want to buy the TL3 Handgonne (B279), which does 2d pi++ costs $300 and was what the above power models, as Signature Gear? Only 1cp in Signature Gear. Oh no! Clearly Powers are overpriced...or Signature Gear is underpriced! Not everything is going to cost exactly the same. Rapid Healing and Very Rapid Healing parallels the cost of Fit and Very Fit. That (RAW) works for me, and it works for my players. |
|
05-20-2010, 12:01 PM | #84 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Quote:
The parallel I would use, therefore, is that VRH shouldn't be purchased where Regeneration is available. That aside I don't see it as a major issue. |
|
05-20-2010, 12:37 PM | #85 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Worth is relative to every other advantage, not just the ones that do very close to the same thing. Even if they can never be compared directly (which is not the case), they most assuredly can be compared by way of other Advantages that are valid in both campaigns.
Value is contingent. Advantage prices are not contingent, however. So how can VRH's price be justified by the contingency that no other better-than-Rapid Healing healing advantage is permitted? Quote:
But when it doesn't, there should be a reason. Common examples include: -Yes, it costs more if you build it non-optimally. -That's not actually legal/is a modifier-exploit the GM probably shouldn't permit/has drawbacks you're disregarding. -Yes it costs more, but there are additional benefits. Not so much: "Yes, it costs more and does less, but the GM might ban every other advantage that can do something similar, causing some players to buy it anyway." I don't know which of these is less relevant.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
05-20-2010, 01:22 PM | #86 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
|
05-20-2010, 01:29 PM | #87 |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Wow, really? I never would have guessed. And yet that doesn't matter one even tiny bit, because we aren't asking how much VRH costs by RAW. RAW, in fact, does not matter in the discussion of how much VRH should cost.
|
05-20-2010, 01:59 PM | #88 | |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Quote:
To the core point: If I came into your game and asked to take a Talent called "Tough guy" which cost 5 points per level, and each level removed a point of "shock" penalties and gave me a +1 to resist stun/knockdown, and the social bonus was applied to people impressed with toughness, you'd tell me I was crazy for wanting to take a 15-20 point advantage that already did what High Pain Threshold did. If I replied that it "wasn't the same" (for example, I could have +1 rather than a full +3, and I get a social bonus), you'd still think it was crazy, redundant, and unnecessarily expensive. If Kromm put it in print, this wouldn't change the fact. Yet we have VRH and Slow Regen which do the same thing, barring minute mechanical differences (Yeah, ok, there's a small chance that, with the +5 to heal, you might not get both HP in a day, but c'mon...), and one is more expensive than the other. It's insanity, it's redundant, and it's unnecessary. I see no reason to defend it. As for Slow Regen being "exotic," clearly a normal human is capable of healing 2 HP per day: Very Rapid Healing says so. If you're worried about the cost difference, you can apply an Unusual Background cost, and arrive at the same value. I don't see how bundling VRH into Regen is any more problematic than bundling Toughness from 3e into Damage Resistance in 4e.
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars. |
|
05-20-2010, 02:19 PM | #89 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Quote:
A normal human is capable of healing 2hp per day...as long as they are resting and eating (VRH). A normal human is not capable of healing 2hp per day while on 24-hour drugs and dancing binge (Slow Regeneration). If the VRH person and the Slow Regen person are both resting, the VRH gets 2hp, and the Slow Regen person gets 3. The differences between them are not minimal. One fits within the constraints and rules of normal (i.e. no healing without resting). One does not (i.e. regenerating no matter what). They are not redundant. |
|
05-20-2010, 02:21 PM | #90 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Medford, MA
|
Re: Rapid Healing and Regeneration
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
house rules, rapid healing, regeneration |
|
|