[Powers, Imbuements] Effects depending on MoS

[KBH]

Greetings,

we firstly used some powers in our game, which are based on GURPS Power-Ups 1: Imbuements and GURPS Powers allowing Extra Effort (p. 160).

In both cases, we realized that the active player has to accounce a certain penalty on his skill (Imbuements) or will (Extra Effort) roll in order to achieve a certain enhancement.

At the end of the session, we asked ourself if it would be possible, i.e., GURPS'like, to simply roll and apply an enhancement depending on the MoS. For example, if a player has Penetrating Strike from GURPS Power-Ups 1: Imbuements at a skill level of 14 and rolls a 10, this MoS is equivalent as having taken a -4 penalty prior to this roll and thus granting Armor Divisor (5).

What do you say?

Thanks and Best, KBH

[AlexanderHowl]

Temporary Enhancements are a -1 per 10%, so Armor Divisor (1/10) would require a -15 to skill. Conversely, Penetrative Weapon only requires a -4 to skill, but it requires a 40 CP advantage, a seperate skill, and a specific specialization. As for combining Abilities and Imbuements, they are explicitly forbidden for ranged attacks bought with points (though Innate Attacks with the Melee modifier might be legal).

[Sorenant]

I find Imbuements ineffective cost wise so I wouldn't object for anything that might improve them like that.
Besides, that's not completely without precedents. Plenty of people use a houserule that cost reduction in Magic spells comes from not skill levels but MoS.

[KBH]

Originally Posted by Sorenant

I find Imbuements ineffective cost wise so I wouldn't object for anything that might improve them like that. [..]

Ah, thanks! :)

[AlexanderHowl]

I disagree with the ineffectiveness of Imbuements. In TL5+ campaigns, Imbuements for firearms and beam weapons are horrifically effective. With super characters, attributes get high enough that Imbuement Skill are quite cheap. When you combine TL5+ with super characters, a character with Imbuements can be quite terrifying.

For example, imagine a 500 CP character with DX 20, Ambidexterity, Gunslinger, Imbuement 3 (Super), Modular Abilities 16 (Cosmic Powers; Super, -10%; Trait-Limited, Imbuement Skills, -20%), and Guns (Pistol) at DX+5. They can manifest anywhere from 1 to 16 Imbuement Skills for Guns (Pistol), ranging from a high of 22 to a low of 17.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by KBH

What do you say?

No problems with it at all. In fact, that's exactly how Extra Effort works in DFRPG simply to cut down on failed rolls making Extra Effort a waste of time, so I see no reason it can't be carried over to Imbuements.

Probably make them more appealing. As it stands not a single one of my Players has ever wanted to take them if they had another choice for powers.

[KBH]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

For example, imagine a 500 CP character with DX 20, Ambidexterity, Gunslinger, Imbuement 3 (Super), Modular Abilities 16 (Cosmic Powers; Super, -10%; Trait-Limited, Imbuement Skills, -20%), and Guns (Pistol) at DX+5. They can manifest anywhere from 1 to 16 Imbuement Skills for Guns (Pistol), ranging from a high of 22 to a low of 17.

Well ... maybe. I am currently working on my WH40k Space Marines and they are 500XP+ characters.

However, according to Dr Kromm's ability explanation, I simply did not use values higher than Amazing.

Thanks and best, KBH

[AlexanderHowl]

Space Marines are already the best of the best from their worlds before modification (averaging 16+ in every attribute would not be unreasonable with Combat Reflexes and Very Fit). After modification, ST should be a minimum of 20, while the other attributes should be a minimum of 16, with additional advantages beyond Combat Reflexes and Very Fit. Given the failure rate, geneseed implantation should probably require a HT-10 roll, with failure causing death and critical failure destroying the geneseed.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by KBH

What do you say?

There are some gameplay advantages* to a system that gives you a better return if you accept a risk beforehand rather than being able to retroactively apply the effect. Personally, I feel a 1.5x difference is about right. For Deceptive Attacks, this would mean you divide MoS on an attack by 3 to determine the defense penalty (instead of - or rather in addition to - accepting the risk of a -2 to attack for every -1 to defense). In this case, it means every 1.5 on MoS (round up) is as good as taking a -1 penalty. So, your guy has the option of taking a -4 to his success roll to get AD (5) or rolling normally and hoping he gets MoS 6+. He could even mix and match - take only a -2 and hope for MoS 3, for example.

If you prefer the carrot over the stick (which I typically do, although I think it's excessive here), you could treat MoS as though the character retroactively took the standard penalty, but give them the option of taking the penalty for an improved effect. For Deceptive Attack, this means every MoS 2 is -1 to defense, and every -1.5 to hit (round away from 0) is -1 to the enemy's defense. For Penetrating Strike, this is every -(2/3) to the roll (again, round away from 0) is as good as getting MoS 1 - your guy gets AD (5) on MoS 4, or he can take a -3 to the roll to get AD (5) on any success. In this case, he's actually better off mix-and-matching - with a -2 to the roll (which is as good as MoS 3), he only needs MoS 1 for AD (5) (same probability as taking the -3 in terms of getting AD (5), but if he rolls a 12 at least he still gets some effect).

*This is basically allowing the players the choice of playing it safe or taking a gamble for improved effect if they win. It's a bit of a meta-game that can help players stay more engaged, as they need to consider their options rather than just rolling and hoping for the best.

[KBH]

Originally Posted by Varyon

There are some gameplay advantages* to a system that gives you a better return if you accept a risk beforehand rather than being able to retroactively apply the effect. Personally, I feel a 1.5x difference is about right. For Deceptive Attacks, this would mean you divide MoS on an attack by 3 to determine the defense penalty (instead of - or rather in addition to - accepting the risk of a -2 to attack for every -1 to defense). In this case, it means every 1.5 on MoS (round up) is as good as taking a -1 penalty. So, your guy has the option of taking a -4 to his success roll to get AD (5) or rolling normally and hoping he gets MoS 6+. He could even mix and match - take only a -2 and hope for MoS 3, for example.

If you prefer the carrot over the stick (which I typically do, although I think it's excessive here), you could treat MoS as though the character retroactively took the standard penalty, but give them the option of taking the penalty for an improved effect. For Deceptive Attack, this means every MoS 2 is -1 to defense, and every -1.5 to hit (round away from 0) is -1 to the enemy's defense. For Penetrating Strike, this is every -(2/3) to the roll (again, round away from 0) is as good as getting MoS 1 - your guy gets AD (5) on MoS 4, or he can take a -3 to the roll to get AD (5) on any success. In this case, he's actually better off mix-and-matching - with a -2 to the roll (which is as good as MoS 3), he only needs MoS 1 for AD (5) (same probability as taking the -3 in terms of getting AD (5), but if he rolls a 12 at least he still gets some effect).

This is indeed very interesting, I will compute the distinct values for the powers of the Librarian and consider this approach as well as discussing it with the player initiating this issue.