Having problems with "Based on X" enhancement

[PK]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Aren't Afflictions a prime example of 'deliberate superhuman attacks'?

"Affliction", yes, "afflictions", no. The afflictions on p. B429 are states which can be triggered by many different things. For example, a bee sting can cause Unconsciousness in an allergic person; sneaking up on someone while they're eating and popping a balloon can cause Choking, and so on. With the exception of supers games or other games with a heavy reliance on powers, most afflictions (small "a") are caused by purely natural events.

Apparently these natural afflictions were the ones being cited in the box, and not deliberate anti-buff Affliction attacks. This is horribly unclear and deserving of a sizable FAQ entry, IMO, but it does at least explain some things.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Rev_Pee_Kitty

Apparently these natural afflictions were the ones being cited in the box, and not deliberate anti-buff Affliction attacks. This is horribly unclear and deserving of a sizable FAQ entry, IMO, but it does at least explain some things.

Seconded!
The rule seemed clear until the capitalization issue was raised, and now it's just plain easy to miss, especially for new players. Hell, I'm considered one of the two veteran GURPSologists in the city, and still misunderstood it. And we're educating a much less rules-lawyery generation. Think about the children...

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Rev_Pee_Kitty

"Affliction", yes, "afflictions", no.

Apparently these natural afflictions were the ones being cited in the box, and not deliberate anti-buff Affliction attacks. This is horribly unclear and deserving of a sizable FAQ entry, IMO, but it does at least explain some things.

I agree that the box is less-than-clear. I'm not sure that the FAQ needs much of an entry, though. I'm sure that

This rule applies to incidental attribute reduction by injury and hazards. Affliction with Attribute Penalty, Innate Attack with Side Effect or Symptoms that lower attributes, Leech with Steal (Other Score), and spells that reduce attributes (like Foolishness) are all direct, not incidental, and lower the target score even for defensive purposes.

would do. Also, it would be easier to add to future printings.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I agree that the box is less-than-clear. I'm not sure that the FAQ needs much of an entry, though. I'm sure that

This rule applies to incidental attribute reduction by injury and hazards. Affliction with Attribute Penalty, Innate Attack with Side Effect or Symptoms that lower attributes, Leech with Steal (Other Score), and spells that reduce attributes (like Foolishness) are all direct, not incidental, and lower the target score even for defensive purposes.

would do. Also, it would be easier to add to future printings.

Ahhh, much better now... If not FAQ_worthy, should it be considered an Erratum instead?

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Basic Set

Defensive reactions that don't require a maneuver to perform - active defenses, resistance rolls, Fright Checks etc. - never suffer penalties for attribute reductions. For instance, -2 to DX would not affect Block, Dodge or Parry.

Originally Posted by Kromm

This rule applies to incidental attribute reduction by injury and hazards. Affliction with Attribute Penalty, Innate Attack with Side Effect or Symptoms that lower attributes, Leech with Steal (Other Score), and spells that reduce attributes (like Foolishness) are all direct, not incidental, and lower the target score even for defensive purposes.

Does this mean that the "truth serum" (Biotech 157) that imposes a will penalty of -2 doesn't make it harder for the victim to resist interrogation?

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Heh. Yeah, as advertised, that rule forbids it. However, the intent of the rule was to keep, say, shock penalties and penalties to IQ for missed sleep from affecting defenses, resistance rolls, etc. I suppose that we should have included a rider that victims of Foolishness spells, DX-depleting Leech attacks, etc., do suffer the full effects of attribute reductions, since that's the main point of such attacks.

Our goal was to keep mundane injury and affliction from meaning on-the-fly recalculations all the time, not to gimp attack abilities that can already be dodged or resisted.

Could we get this added to the F.A.Q.?

[transmetahuman]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Does this mean that the "truth serum" (Biotech 157) that imposes a will penalty of -2 doesn't make it harder for the victim to resist interrogation?

That doesn't sound "incidental" to me. It sounds like the whole point.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by transmetahuman

That doesn't sound "incidental" to me. It sounds like the whole point.

How about making someone drunk to seduce them? Reduced IQ (and thus Will) means reduced resistance to Social Skills. Does the effect differ depending on intention or what?

[transmetahuman]

Originally Posted by Molokh

How about making someone drunk to seduce them? Reduced IQ (and thus Will) means reduced resistance to Social Skills. Does the effect differ depending on intention or what?

Good point. Maybe some of those affliction descriptions should include Will, whenever self-control reductions are mentioned.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by transmetahuman

Good point. Maybe some of those affliction descriptions should include Will, whenever self-control reductions are mentioned.

Umm, okay, make someone drunk so that it would be easier to fight them. Yet when the fight comes about, they have their full Dodge and Parry. Hitting my eye becomes impossible, but 'hitting' (deflecting) my swift-moving knife is somehow okay.