|
12-21-2009, 09:32 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Attempt 1 for reworking Regeneration (noflame)
People have been listing trouble with the Regen rules (or flaming said people for questioning the rules), so I decided I'd try to find a way to make a more evenly-graded system. With a little modification, I even managed to make something that (on the surface) looks valid for applying to Fatigue (hotly contested, here!). That being said, here's the results (and some explanation):
Prerequisite for Regeneration: Very Healthy (or Very Fit for the fatigue version). Reasons: 1) This would be the natural consequence for having regeneration (and optimal health), and 2) the points balance better if one needs VH rather than GETTING Healthy for free with the initial 10-point version of Regen. Cost per Level: 6 Effects: At the first level (for HP), the daily roll to recover HP is replaced with an automatic 1 HP per 12 hours. Each additional level reduces the time for HP recovery by half, rounding up to the next second. At level 17-18, further levels instead add 1 HP per second, rather than doubling. Fatigue Regen Cost per Level: 12 Fatigue Regen effects: Each level reduces the time to recover Fatigue by half, rounded up to the next second. Half-levels may be purchased, reducing the time by 30%, up to level 8. At level 10-11, further levels instead add 1 FP per second. Reasoning: looking at the costs, at 24 points, it takes 90 minutes per HP, at 54 it takes almost 3 minutes per point (2:49), at 102 it's 1 per second, and at 150 it's 9 per second. Nearly a perfect match. Let's look at fatigue. REMEMBER: Fatigue only recovers quickly under NORMAL usage! It does NOT recover any faster when spending it to fuel Magic or Advantages! (B.55) Recovery at about 1 minute (53 seconds) takes 3 1/2 levels, or 30 points. at the 90 point level (8 1/2 levels) it's 2/second, and if you want to recover 5 points per second (which requires a Do Nothing action), it costs a whopping 156 points! Seems fairly balanced to me! |
12-21-2009, 05:49 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: in your pocket, stealing all your change
|
Re: Attempt 1 for reworking Regeneration (noflame)
Here's my 2c:
Sounds like you did your homework, the equivalence is good enough. It sounds like a somewhat more complicated way of doing roughly the same thing, but in a way that some people would appreciate. Can't say there's anything wrong with it. I wouldn't use it, but that's just personal taste. |
12-21-2009, 06:14 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vermont, USA
|
Re: Attempt 1 for reworking Regeneration (noflame)
I played around with a very similar concept, including the change from doubling to incrementing once you hit one per second rates. I used 5 and 10 points per level instead of 6 and 12, because I was more concerned with matching the lower levels and out of general pentaphilia, but 6 and 12 is fine too.
Here's what I'm using now for fine-tuning Regeneration: New Special EnhancementsThis produces a pretty good spread (let's see if I get this right): 1HP/5hr [20]: Regeneration (Regular; Reduced Rate, ×1/5, -20%) 1HP/2hr [23]: Regular; ×1/2, -10% 1HP/1hr [25]: Regular 1HP/30m [30]: Regular; ×2, +20% 1HP/15m [33]: Regular, ×4, +30% 1HP/10m [35]: Regular; ×6, +40% 1HP/6m [38]: Regular; ×10, +50% 1HP/5m [40]: Regular; ×12, +60% 1HP/5m [40]: Fast; ×1/5, -20% 1HP/2m [45]: Fast; ×1/2, -10% 1HP/1m [50]: Fast 1HP/30s [60]: Fast; ×2, +20% 1HP/15s [65]: Fast; ×4, +30% 1HP/10s [70]: Fast; ×6, +40% 1HP/6s [75]: Fast; ×10, +50% 1HP/5s [80]: Fast; ×12, +60% 1HP/5s [80]: Very Fast; ×1/5, -20% 1HP/2s [90]: Very Fast; ×1/2, -10% 1HP/1s [100]: Very Fast 2HP/1s [120]: Very Fast; ×2, +20% 4HP/1s [130]: Very Fast; ×4, +30% 6HP/1s [140]: Very Fast; ×6, +40% 10HP/1s [150]: Very Fast; ×10, +50% 12HP/1s [160]: Very Fast; ×12, +60% 2HP/1s [120]: Extreme; ×1/5, -20% 5HP/1s [135]: Extreme; ×1/2, -10% 10HP/1s [150]: Extreme 20HP/1s [180]: Extreme; ×2, +20% 40HP/1s [195]: Extreme; ×4, +30% 60HP/1s [210]: Extreme; ×6, +40% 100HP/1s [225]: Extreme; ×10, +50% 120HP/1s [240]: Extreme; ×12, +60% Obviously the highest levels of Extreme would be a GM's call, but I consider 250 points to be an acceptable price for "Regeneration (Instantaneous): You recover all of your HP every second." -- so 240 points for 120HP/sec is okay by me too (and pretty similar, given the High HP and Healing rule, p. B424). Last edited by munin; 11-28-2013 at 10:41 AM. |
12-21-2009, 06:42 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Attempt 1 for reworking Regeneration (noflame)
Quote:
I am a little dubious of the proportional value of FP Regeneration. Even for normals just 5 pts on Fit cuts recovery time in half and gets you +1 on HT rolls too. another 10 pts and you're Very Fit and you expend normal FP half as often (which is almost certainly better than recovering at 2x speed) plus getting another +1 on HT rolls. So 12 pts for 2x FP looks a little pricey, especially if it doesn't work like HP Regeneration which happens regardless of rest or medical care. It also compares poorly to the Spell of Recover Energy which many mages will be able to learn to level 15 for 1 pt and which doubles their FP recovery (though only while resting). Even taking it to level 20 would only be 21 pts and that increases FP recovery while resting to 1 per 2 minutes as compared to 1 per 2.5 minutes for 24 pts of your proposal. Now, the canon option (as of Powers) of 50 pts for 1/minute is no great bargain either. However (for mages at least) 100 for 1/second and 150 for 10/second is worth it if you can find the pts. It really does change very basic aspects of the default Gurps Magic system. Some of these changes can be viewed as positive though. It's very much more dungeoncrawly to have mages throw big Explosive Fireballs more than once per widely separated encounter. It should probably also be noted Powers does not actually set the precedent that FP Regeneration costs 2x HP Regeneration. If you buy FP Regeneration as a 100% Enhancement on HP Regeneration you regenerate _both_ at the same rate. If you buy just HP _or_ just FP it costs 10/25/50/100/150. The issue of complexity noted elsewhere also appears significant to me. So, I would not use your proposed rules in their current form.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
01-03-2010, 11:17 AM | #5 | |
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Re: Attempt 1 for reworking Regeneration (noflame)
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
house rules, regeneration |
|
|