[Psionic Powers] Do inanimate targets resist Malediction with HT or Will?

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I generally don't permit contests vs Will for anything other than mind-affecting powers, which makes rocks immune, but there's no real evidence for rocks having Will 0 anyway; they have IQ 0, Will n/a.

I'm not discussing "mind-affecting" abilities. Pyrokinesis is an example of Burning Attack enhanced with Malediction, which is not a "mind-affecting" ability.

A common misconception is to confuse (a) "mind-affecting" abilities with (b) abilities resisted by Will. Many hostile abilities that allow the targets to resist with Will are mind-affecting, but not all. Burning Attack enhanced with Malediction is an example of abilities that fall into the category (b) and not the category (a).

Malediction-enhanced Burning Attack is resisted with Will. When an inanimate object are targeted, it resists the attack by rolling a Quick Contest using its Will 0 (our Line Editor assured). It neither uses its HT as the resisting score nor automatically wins the Quick Contest! If either is true, it's clearly disadvantageous -- it should be a limitation on the attacker's ability.

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

That's because you're only looking at this one rule. See Powers and Options (p. 6) for a rundown of some of the features that psi has. It has benefits and drawbacks, and these things roughly cancel out. You have to look at the forest, not each individual tree.

The box on p. 6 of Psionic Powers lists optional rules applied to every abilities that belong to psionic powers equally, such as extra effort, gestalts, psi techniques, penalties on repeated attempts, crippling on critical failures, etc. That's not what I'm trying to discuss.

Not all psionic abilities have the "Will by sentients / HT by non-sentients"-type resistance score. Some work on sentients and nonsentients equally, some work only on sentients, and some work on non-sentients too but are resisted with HT if the target is non-sentient. I'm not looking at "the forest" but I'm looking to an "individual tree" (Pyrokinesis ability), but it's because "this one rule" is the what I'm trying to discuss.

Unless otherwise modified, Malediction added on an Innate Attack is resisted with Will (p. B102) by any target, sentient or non-sentient. If it's to be changed to HT, there must be an appropriate modifier. It's effectively a kind of disadvantageous variant of Based On HT. Pyrokinesis should have a limitation like "Nuisance Effect, Inanimate targets resist this attack with HT instead of Will 0, -10%" in its writeup.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

Malediction-enhanced Burning Attack is resisted with Will. When an inanimate object are targeted, it resists the attack by rolling a Quick Contest using its Will 0 (our Line Editor assured). It neither uses its HT as the resisting score nor automatically wins the Quick Contest! If either is true, it's clearly disadvantageous -- it should be a limitation on the attacker's ability.

OK so how much are you charging for the ability to form gestalts? (Incidentally I deal with the problem by having the Malediction be resisted by HT, period.)

[munin]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

... I'm not looking at "the forest" but I'm looking to an "individual tree" (Pyrokinesis ability), but it's because "this one rule" is the what I'm trying to discuss. ...

Not all source-specific rules will be a beneficial or limiting to all the abilities in a power. It's possible that a source-specific rule might affect only one ability in a power. That doesn't change the fact that it's a source option, not an ability modifier, and thus you look at whether the source options are roughly balanced across the entire power, not just whether they're balanced on a single ability.

Consider the Additional Contact rule (GURPS Psionic Powers, p. 6). This is a beneficial option (it provides a bonus under certain circumstances) that only applies to ranged abilities that might involve a subject of some sort. But it doesn't help with the Seekersense ability, even though it's a ranged ability, because once you are able to make contact with the target there's no point in using the ability. It is neither a limitation on the Seekersense ability that it can't benefit from the Additional Contact rule, nor is it an enhancement on other abilities that they can.

The "HT instead of Will" rule is a limiting source option because it makes it harder to affect inanimate objects with psi. Psi already has more beneficial options than limiting options (as most sources do -- there are at least twice as many possible defined beneficial options as limiting options in GURPS Powers anyway so this happens), so this helps improve the balance of the source. The fact that the rule only applies to certain kind of psi abilities doesn't affect the cost of those abilities.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

Malediction-enhanced Burning Attack is resisted with Will. When an inanimate object are targeted, it resists the attack by rolling a Quick Contest using its Will 0 (our Line Editor assured). It neither uses its HT as the resisting score nor automatically wins the Quick Contest! If either is true, it's clearly disadvantageous -- it should be a limitation on the attacker's ability.

I like how no one actually noticed what Kromm said:

Originally Posted by Kromm

If the attack in question would affect you at all, sure.

Which brings the issue, fully, back to "GM call."

Since Machines have 0 FP as a 0-point feature, and can neither have nor be affected by FP loss, it makes more sense to have inanimate objects have a 0 Will as a 0-point feature that they can resist Will-based affects with their HT provided it is possible for that affect to affect them at all. This way characters don't have to pay off a 200-point disadvantage if they want to use the template as a body (which, oddly enough, seems to be the route that THS took).

The only IQ-penalty, "inanimate object" templates I see are for software . . . not for any vehicles or robots . . ..

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

I'm not discussing "mind-affecting" abilities. Pyrokinesis is an example of Burning Attack enhanced with Malediction, which is not a "mind-affecting" ability.

I know. I simply wouldn't allow that build. If it's not mind-affecting, it can't go against Will (yes, I know that's not RAW. I don't care).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I like how no one actually noticed what Kromm said:

Which brings the issue, fully, back to "GM call."

It brings the issue to that some effects are inherently useless against some targets, e.g. Mind Affecting effects against IQ0 and Tox attacks against non-cellular targets and Classic Telepathy against Digital Minds. Those things are normally specific to interactions between effect categories and target categories.

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Since Machines have 0 FP as a 0-point feature, and can neither have nor be affected by FP loss, it makes more sense to have inanimate objects have a 0 Will as a 0-point feature that they can resist Will-based affects with their HT provided it is possible for that affect to affect them at all. This way characters don't have to pay off a 200-point disadvantage if they want to use the template as a body (which, oddly enough, seems to be the route that THS took).

Well, it's not RAW, but it's certainly a reasonable rule for some specific campaigns.

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

The only IQ-penalty, "inanimate object" templates I see are for software . . . not for any vehicles or robots . . ..

Yet Kromm said the IQ/Will/Per 0 drop makes sense for dumb machines and rocks (noting the difference between Homogenous and Unliving, though that is a tangent)

Originally Posted by Anthony

I know. I simply wouldn't allow that build. If it's not mind-affecting, it can't go against Will (yes, I know that's not RAW. I don't care).

Perfectly reasonable ruling (in fact, a GM can always veto a build or require a power to be built differently). No argument there.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Actually, there is evidence.

Since that quote has been pointed to recently, I suspect that Anthony may have meant something other than rulings made in the forums, though only he could say for sure.

I'd say the rock's IQ and Will are both N/A, but an idea has been floating in my head for a few days now, that maybe the "N/A" concept should just be equated with having a zero in the Attribute.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I'd say the rock's IQ and Will are both N/A, but an idea has been floating in my head for a few days now, that maybe the "N/A" concept should just be equated with having a zero in the Attribute.

Attribute: N/A is absolutely a house rule (and personally one that I don't like at all), by RAW it doesn't exist.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Since that quote has been pointed to recently, I suspect that Anthony may have meant something other than rulings made in the forums, though only he could say for sure.

I generally don't consider forum rulings to be more than 'house rules used by the author'.