Repricing Striking ST (but not HP or Lifting ST) in modern campaigns

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Some character concepts call for high ST, even if it's not terribly useful in the setting. I think the idea behind repricing it is to make those characters more competitive, so a player doesn't feel punished for having a cyborg or uplifted bear or whatever for their character.

I suppose that's a concern if something compels the player to take such a character, but if it's a choice they make ...?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I suppose that's a concern if something compels the player to take such a character, but if it's a choice they make ...?

The idea is to allow for interesting character concepts without crippling the character's ability to function in the campaign. Basically, in an ideal world, no player would say "I've got an idea for an interesting character, but it would require me to spend half my point budget on a trait that gains me next to nothing, so I'm going to make a different character." I want to allow players to play the characters they want to play (and that are appropriate for the campaign), so if some necessary trait costs far too much for what the character would get out of it, I don't see a problem with adjusting it downward (just as it's appropriate to adjust the cost of a trait upward if it costs far too little for what the character would get out of it).

Do note I feel this is appropriate for both Advantages and Disadvantages. Berserk is probably more of a Disadvantage in a setting where you're likely to get killed in one hit if you don't stay behind cover and/or make heavy use of evasive movement, for example (although in such a setting, I'd be more inclined to disallow Berserk than boost how many points it gave back).

And, yes, this does deviate from the Generic and Universal bits of GURPS, but I feel making such adjustments for a specific campaign is as appropriate as, say, flipping the switches on various Harsh Realism settings.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

Edit: This is one of the reasons I love Knowing Your Own Strength from Pyramid #3/83, it shifts the lions share of the value of ST to lifting and brings String ST in line with Innate Attack.

KYOS actually makes Striking ST noticeably cheaper than Innate Attack for cutting and impaling damage. Which might be NBD if swordplay doesn't play much role in the campaign but as I'm thinking about it it does feel kinda off. Aside from cases that involve use of limitations on advantages (which can be done with Striking ST anyway), the only cases I can think of in GURPS where you can increase your damage for 1 point are things like Striking Surface and Better Gear (Weapons), which don't "stack" with gear.

Originally Posted by RedMattis

I'm not sure if I understand why you wouldn't want KYOS for realistic settings? You just use lower values of ST for non-super strong characters, right?

That's fair, I guess what I mind more about KYOS is the weird things it does to scaling. Which include being able to do vastly more damage by picking up and dropping things than you can with a punch or kick.

Originally Posted by RedMattis

I use Knowing Your Own Strength for all settings. Striking-ST is just flat out misspriced in the regular GURPS compared to Innate Attack/DR/Etc. Though I personally go for 2 points per level, but that is mostly because I think KYOS underestimates the versatility of Striking-ST. (melee/ranged weapons, martial arts, power blow...)

If you want to make Striking ST move expensive than what is in KYOS then you want to make IE/DR/... more expensive as well, so it makes sense to just use that scaling.

I don't think Striking ST is quite "flat-out mispriced" as you say. The thing about Striking ST is that unlike Innate Attack, it can benefit from all sorts of "force multipliers"—Power Blow, various per-die damage bonuses, imbuements, and perhaps most importantly magic and superscience weapons. That said the more I think about it the more I do like your solution of 2 points/level for at lease some games.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The idea is to allow for interesting character concepts without crippling the character's ability to function in the campaign. Basically, in an ideal world, no player would say "I've got an idea for an interesting character, but it would require me to spend half my point budget on a trait that gains me next to nothing, so I'm going to make a different character." I want to allow players to play the characters they want to play (and that are appropriate for the campaign), so if some necessary trait costs far too much for what the character would get out of it, I don't see a problem with adjusting it downward (just as it's appropriate to adjust the cost of a trait upward if it costs far too little for what the character would get out of it).

Do note I feel this is appropriate for both Advantages and Disadvantages. Berserk is probably more of a Disadvantage in a setting where you're likely to get killed in one hit if you don't stay behind cover and/or make heavy use of evasive movement, for example (although in such a setting, I'd be more inclined to disallow Berserk than boost how many points it gave back).

And, yes, this does deviate from the Generic and Universal bits of GURPS, but I feel making such adjustments for a specific campaign is as appropriate as, say, flipping the switches on various Harsh Realism settings.

You make your point very articulately, but I wonder if you would keep to the same point of view for Warp in, say, a Star Trek game, or exotic senses in other Ultratech settings.

[Tyneras]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

I don't think Striking ST is quite "flat-out mispriced" as you say. The thing about Striking ST is that unlike Innate Attack, it can benefit from all sorts of "force multipliers"—Power Blow, various per-die damage bonuses, imbuements, and perhaps most importantly magic and superscience weapons. That said the more I think about it the more I do like your solution of 2 points/level for at lease some games.

When I went all-in on KYOS, I dropped all the per-die bonuses and converted them into flat bonuses, I felt the logarithmic curve removed the need. It's worked out well so far. Power Blow was summarily ejected from my games a long time ago, it never felt like it fit properly in 4E. But if you want to use it with KYOS I'd say +1 striking ST per margin of success.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

You make your point very articulately, but I wonder if you would keep to the same point of view for Warp in, say, a Star Trek game, or exotic senses in other Ultratech settings.

In a setting where everyone and his dog could teleport using technology, I would certainly reduce the cost of buying Warp as an advantage, if I felt that innate teleporters were an appropriate concept for the game.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

You make your point very articulately, but I wonder if you would keep to the same point of view for ... exotic senses in other Ultratech settings.

My Lawmen of Borlo game did just that. A lot of the parahuman templates had exotic senses, and they were very heavily discounted (probably around 1/5th of their RAW value). It was a detective game, and it worked out just fine.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

In a setting where everyone and his dog could teleport using technology, I would certainly reduce the cost of buying Warp as an advantage, if I felt that innate teleporters were an appropriate concept for the game.

Agreed, and that last part cannot be stressed enough. In a typical Star Trek campaign, the only case Warp would be useful would be when the ship's teleporter won't work (away team is inside a shielded bunker, the ship has been taken over by hostiles, this week's Holodeck malfunction has damaged the teleporter, etc), but generally speaking the only case where the ship's teleporter won't work would be when I want the characters to not be able to use it... in which case I certainly wouldn't want an innate teleporter ruining my plot. So, I probably wouldn't adjust the price of Warp in a Star Trek campaign - I'd ban it outright! If I were inclined to run a Star Trek campaign, anyhow (I generally wouldn't be).

As for exotic senses? Certainly, if people can get contact lenses that grant them Hyperspectral Vision for 1.6% of Average Starting Wealth, I wouldn't charge a full [25] to not need said contact lenses.

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

That's fair, I guess what I mind more about KYOS is the weird things it does to scaling. Which include being able to do vastly more damage by picking up and dropping things than you can with a punch or kick.

I think you're assumed to not use Straight ST outside of Supers campaigns and the like. Just buy Lifting ST 13, and Striking ST 25 or whatever for your martial artist that almost punches holes through people, but rarely lifts anything heavier than the table he throws in someone's face.

I don't think Striking ST is quite "flat-out mispriced" as you say. The thing about Striking ST is that unlike Innate Attack, it can benefit from all sorts of "force multipliers"—Power Blow, various per-die damage bonuses, imbuements, and perhaps most importantly magic and superscience weapons. That said the more I think about it the more I do like your solution of 2 points/level for at lease some games.

Imbuements only increase damage by letting you ignore armor, but at a significant character point investment. The other effects are mostly side-grades or addons/additive.

Power Blow is generally only available in Martial Arts-themed campaigns and kitchen sink fantasy like "Dungeon Fantasy". Power Blow is pretty incredible though, being straight multiplicative it does kind of invite munchkinism as well. I'd rather just lower the price of Striking ST and ban Power Blow if it is a problem.

In settings where strength-based super-science weapons are available you're generally dealing with so much armor that you'll hardly feel overpowered. Nevermind that stuff like the "force sword" doesn't even use strength. ...and the fact that being someone who isn't hiding behind cover in a TL where people are´often filling the air with plasma is often sub-optimal in the first place.

But yes, Striking ST for 1p/level was going a bit far, imo. I might theoretically accept that price for a character who only uses ST to punch people.

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Agreed, and that last part cannot be stressed enough. In a typical Star Trek campaign, the only case Warp would be useful would be when the ship's teleporter won't work (away team is inside a shielded bunker, the ship has been taken over by hostiles, this week's Holodeck malfunction has damaged the teleporter, etc), but generally speaking the only case where the ship's teleporter won't work would be when I want the characters to not be able to use it... in which case I certainly wouldn't want an innate teleporter ruining my plot. So, I probably wouldn't adjust the price of Warp in a Star Trek campaign - I'd ban it outright! If I were inclined to run a Star Trek campaign, anyhow (I generally wouldn't be).

I do the same for "Jumper" in my campaigns, by using the limited worlds limitations despite there just being two worlds. (The RAW can't convince me that vanilla Jumper in a world with only two worlds isn't dramatically worse than Jumper in a world where there are infinite)

Tbh. Jumper is another one of those traits that just feel RAW mispriced in a typical campaign structure where you aren't expected to try to abuse it to trade or whatever. You can't even use it to escape with the rest of the party unless you have a bunch of really expensive (or backfirey like tunnel) enhancements.

ST like many other traits really should have a setting base-cost "lever" on them.

I did make an attempt at something like that for ST and Innate attack over here: http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=16 but it doesn't cover stuff like Warp or Jumper being very setting dependent as well.