Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-08-2015, 04:37 PM   #1
johndallman
Night Watchman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

GURPS makes it realistically hard to knock people out or otherwise incapacitate them without hurting them badly, if you use physical attacks. So I tried designing a power to do it. The budget is 15-20 points.

The context is a Weird War II campaign, where the opponents are almost always human, and very few of them have any DR, except for helmets. The character in question is very capable of sneaking up to melee range unnoticed, with effective Stealth-18, plus Invisibility. Knifing sentries is thus possible, but there's a risk they'll make noise and fight back: something a bit cleaner and surer would be welcome.

The problem with afflicting an incapacitating condition is that the target gets to roll vs. HT+DR, minus additional levels of the affliction, and if he resists he's unaffected. So I seem to need enough levels to give -3 or -4 to that roll, and that means it needs to be fairly cheap per level. However, the lack of DR on most targets means this may be viable.

So, per level, the cost is a base [10], and Daze is +50%. No Signature +20% seems advisable to avoid flashes and bangs. Daze does not take someone out, but it gives you at least a minute, in which time you can move people up to help you grab/bind/gag the poor chap. Alternatively sneaking past him should be fairly easy, and if he's unharmed when he recovers, he may not realise anything happened apart from a "funny turn". So we're at 170%, and need to cut that down substantially.

We take Magical -10%, because that's required for powers in the setting, Melee Attack (Range C, cannot parry) for -35% and costs 1 fatigue for -5%. That gets us down to 120%.

A Gadget modifier, for a cosh, DR2, SM-6, stolen by a quick contest of DX or ST is -60%. This is a replaceable item, but that involves a reasonable amount of trouble. We're at 60%, but that isn't cheap enough yet. I was stuck here for a while.

Then I spotted the Armour Divisor limitation, which is -30% for doubling the effects of DR, and giving any target with no DR DR1. But that's actually cost-effective: we need to buy an extra level to overcome the DR1, but that only costs 3 points since we have the cost down to 30%. Six levels of this cost 18 points, and the target ends up rolling HT+DR-4 to resist.

Then you think about what this models in game reality. A cosh to the head is worth avoiding because of the skull DR2, even if the target isn't in a helmet. Blows to the neck can be incapacitating. Melee Attack doesn't have any rules about limitations for needing to hit specific locations. It seems you use a melee attack skill to make the attack roll, and I can't find a limitation that models this - Inaccurate is for ranged attacks. Any suggestions?
johndallman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2015, 08:48 PM   #2
Nereidalbel
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

Give a price break based on the hit location penalty. The same is done for DR.
Nereidalbel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2015, 09:08 PM   #3
Gef
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yucca Valley, CA
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

Affliction is one weird advantage. There are so many huge enhancements you might want for it that no reasonable limitations will reduce the level cost to where you can buy more than one, leaving you with a cool power that works less than half the time.

But, there are Enhancements that make a single level viable, like Malediction. This makes it a contest of Will versus HT, ignoring armor, and I think you can take Reliable +10 (from powers) for just +50%, that is net +5 points on level 1 Affliction. You run up against the rule of 16, but it's better odds than multiple levels of Affliction in some cases.
Gef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2015, 10:30 PM   #4
Flyndaran
Untagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

You can't take reliable as that's an end run around the overtly stated mechanic.
You want higher chance of success? Then you buy more levels.

I agree that it's almost always absurdly expensive for tiny gains.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check.
Flyndaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 06:57 AM   #5
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyndaran View Post
You can't take reliable as that's an end run around the overtly stated mechanic.
You want higher chance of success? Then you buy more levels.

I agree that it's almost always absurdly expensive for tiny gains.
A quick fix for Affliction, the standard hostile use of it, is to say that levels after the first subtract 3 from the roll to resist, not one.

As it is, levels of Affliction beyond the first seem painfully overpriced to me. And yet the imbalance is so easy to fix, if you're the one sitting behind the GM's screen. If you're not, it's not worth asking.
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 07:27 AM   #6
johndallman
Night Watchman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen View Post
if you're the one sitting behind the GM's screen. If you're not, it's not worth asking.
That presumes a lot about the GM-player relationship. They aren't always like the ones that seem to bave scarred you.

I doubt I'm going to buy this power, even if I can get it into the budget and make it effective, simply because there are a lot of other good uses for 5-7 sessions worth of experience points. However, it's interesting to see if I can find a pure RAW way of doing this, and if it suggests a neat way of changing Affliction. I'm better at solving fully-specified problems than generalised ones.
johndallman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2015, 10:45 PM   #7
the_matrix_walker
 
the_matrix_walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lynn, MA
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Inaccurate is for ranged attacks. Any suggestions?
Seems like a big discount... but the best reference I can come up with would be to migrate the Clumsy limitation from Striker, it's -20% per -1 to hit.
the_matrix_walker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 02:16 AM   #8
johndallman
Night Watchman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereidalbel View Post
Give a price break based on the hit location penalty. The same is done for DR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker View Post
Seems like a big discount... but the best reference I can come up with would be to migrate the Clumsy limitation from Striker, it's -20% per -1 to hit.
Well, the Partial limitation for DR protects only a single hit location, and is -10% per -1 to hit the location. For this, if one took -50% for neck, and said that it would also work against face, skull or spine, how would that seem?
johndallman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 03:13 AM   #9
Nereidalbel
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Well, the Partial limitation for DR protects only a single hit location, and is -10% per -1 to hit the location. For this, if one took -50% for neck, and said that it would also work against face, skull or spine, how would that seem?
That pretty much says "head shots only" to me, and I'd just say no to the spine. Spine only could be an AA, though.
Nereidalbel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 02:55 AM   #10
RogerBW
 
RogerBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: near London, UK
Default Re: [Basic] Tinkering with Afflictions

It suddenly occurs to me that you need to take into account the -5 for Low Mana.
RogerBW is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
affliction, basic, daze, melee attack, no wounding, symptoms

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.