Alternate Penetrating Strike

[KBH]

Hej folks,

I read through Modifying Existing Damage -> Melee Weapons from GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements and thought how cheap an Armor Divisor can be purchased in comparison to Penetrating Strike from GURPS Power-Ups 1: Imbuements.

Assuming a ST of 14, a character does 2d swing damage, which resembles 2d cutting damage as Innate Attack, i.e., costing 14 CP. The Armor Divisor (2) enhancement is worth 50%, i.e., 14 x 0.5 = 7 CP.
That's it?

No skill roll, no spending of FP, no requirements of Imbue 3 with 40 CP?

Am I missing something? Well, it is fixed, i.e., no higher Armor Divisor by taking a higher penalty ...

However, the calculation above is based on a character's ST value. What if that value changes for instance due to equipment, like the Powered Combat Armor (UT p. 183) granting Striking ST +10?

Thanks and best
KBH

[Plane]

I think if your ST was increased, I would just apply the modifiers you bought to the damage of your base attack, and then treat the difference in dice as lacking the modifiers.

Otherwise I could just play as a ST10 guy, buy enhancements cheap, then wear my amulet of +30 ST and go crazy

[Varyon]

The rules from PU4 apply to a single weapon. If you want your ancestral sword (probably purchased as Signature Gear) to have an armor divisor in your hands, use those rules. If you want to be able to have an armor divisor with any sword you pick up, you'll need to use Imbuements. Also, you don't just use your swing damage - you use the damage the weapon itself deals. For a Very Fine Late Katana, an ST 14 character would deal 1d+3 imp (worth [15.2]) or 2d+3 cut (worth [20.3]); the cut is more expensive, so we go off of it. Armor Divisor (2) is +50%, which is [10.15], rounded up to [11].

GURPS does often adhere to a "5 is all" type of mentality (5 Off Hand Weapon Training Perks are the same cost as Ambidexterity, for example), so multiplying the calculated cost by 5 to let it apply to all swords might not be out of the question (although I'd restrict it to similar swords - in the example above, the character can add an armor divisor to any katana, and possibly to similar weapons like wakazashis, nodachis, etc, but only if they do as much or less damage than you built the ability for). In that case, you're looking at [55], or enough to get the requisite Imbue for [40] and invest nearly [16] into the skill. Also, if I'm not mistaken (don't actually have PU1, but have read it before), that [40] cost is for having Imbue that lets you learn any Imbuement of that level, which is a waste if you just want Penetrating Strike (grab the One Imbuement Limitation in that case).

[zoncxs]

Sorcery shows how to make imbuement skills into advantages and even uses penetrating strike for one of its spells. This cost 34pts (44 as a spell due to affliction), and it lets you use it with anything you can wield. Any weapon can have the AD, regardless of your ST and damage.

[KBH]

Hi folks,

thanks for the replys and suggestions. I came up with another idea, i.e., using Melee Attack (ST based) enhancement.
Starting with an Innate Attack (cut) I end up with the following

Aspected (Force Sword) -20,00*%
Visible -10,00*%
"Countermeasures
(specialized technology)" -5,00*%
"Countermeasures
(specialized capabilities)" -5,00*%
Nuisance (obvious) -5,00*%
Armor Divisor (2) 50,00*%
"Melee Attack
(Reach 1, ST based)" 75,00*%

Summarized, for a base of 1d (cut) damage in addition to your ST based damage, you pay 12.6 CP (rounded up 13).
Note, this is not intended as a weapon which the wielder creates but the effect the wielder adds to a Force Weapon, as soon, as he wields it in combat - thus the Aspected limitation. I also added visible and nuisance due to the "In the hands of a Psyker, the blade crackles with psychic energy if the sword is drawn ...".
Moreover, if you want your Psyker to be more capable you can simply increase the additional damage, e.g., 2d (26 CP), 3d (39 CP) or even increase the Armor Divisor or both.

Although this is a power, I more or less take it as the sword's ability or as the combined effect of the character wielding this weapon.

If a stronger ability (more damage and / or Armor Divisor) is due to a more potent wielder or a better weapon, this is up to the group's decision... In my interpretation from the "consistent" WH40k canon, if a Force Weapon is more deadly in combat compared to another weapon of this kind, this is primary due to the more potent wielder - but who knows.

What do you say?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by KBH

What do you say?

A rather emphatic "No." I'm assuming this is meant to replace the weapon's normal damage (if it's meant to stack, it would need Follow-Up, which doesn't allow for Armor Divisor, although I'd allow it), in which case it's Accessibility (Requires Weapon), which is maybe -10%, rather than Aspected. Visible doesn't apply - Innate Attacks are visible by default, so no further discount for that. The Countermeasures are acceptable, as is Obvious (although note the latter makes stealth impossible). Also, you must modify your default ST-based damage with Armor Divisor to make this legal (see PU8, page 20), which is going to cost another [2.5] per 1d of damage.

All told, the build would look something more like Innate Attack 1d Cut (Armor Divisor (2) +50%; ST-Based +100%; Countermeasures, tech/powers -10%; Melee Attack 1 -25%; Obvious -5%; Requires "Force Sword" -10%) [14]. On top of this, you need to add [2.5] per 1d for your thrust or swing (depending on which the attack uses; likely swing); for ST 14 swing damage (2d), that's another [5], for a total of [19].

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The rules from PU4 apply to a single weapon.

That's how it sounds at first...

If you lose the weapon, you lose the enhancements as well

but as it continues, it seems more flexible...

though not the points spent on them. The GM should allow you to either replace the weapon with an equivalent, or to shift the modifiers to a different weapon

Of course the next column sounds restrictive again...

the ability to add enhancements to any weapon you use, instead of just one, can be found in GURPS Power-Ups 1:
Imbuements.

I imagine that it sort of functions like a non-Unique Gadget: you can replace it, but it's probably not instantaneous transfer, GM might prescribe a "down" period where you adapt to the new tool.

[KBH]

Originally Posted by Varyon

A rather emphatic "No."
[..]
All told, the build would look something more like Innate Attack 1d Cut (Armor Divisor (2) +50%; ST-Based +100%; Countermeasures, tech/powers -10%; Melee Attack 1 -25%; Obvious -5%; Requires "Force Sword" -10%) [14]. On top of this, you need to add [2.5] per 1d for your thrust or swing (depending on which the attack uses; likely swing); for ST 14 swing damage (2d), that's another [5], for a total of [19].

Thanks for the detailed example.

My aim is to provide the ability that a character can wield a weapon and grant it and Armor Divisor and / or additional damage to the swing / thrust damage done by the weapon.

To be honest, I am currently a bit confused. According to Power-Ups 4 it seems to me I can either

1. Apply the rules on page 10, which do the calculation of enhancing melee-weapon damage based on the dmg dealt - which will run into problems, since the characters wear combat armor, providing them Striking ST+10, i.e., underpricing the costs.
2. Start with an Innate Attack and apply ST-Based (p.20), which clearly stats in the box, that this approach is not meant for weapons!

Summarized, it occurs to me that my undertaking cannot be achieved by Power-Ups 4, i.e., maybe I need to look at the Sorcery option offered above.

[Harald387]

Originally Posted by KBH

What do you say?

All of this - whether it's Imbuements or any of the various possible Advantage builds - depends on the context of the game it's being used in. This may well be perfectly reasonable (or even underpowered) in a Supers game, but overpowered and completely wrong for a group of characters doing fantasy adventuring in Megalos.

The key question for any power/ability build is "what are you trying to model here?" That is, how does it fit into the setting and story for the game, or what fictional effect are you trying to imitate?

GURPS can build anything, but going at it from 'the rules exist to do this' instead of 'I'd like to do this, what's the best way to build it?' is the wrong direction.

[Anaraxes]

You can't (by RAW) apply modifiers like Enhancements directly to normal equpment-based attacks. If you want to build a melee attack as an Innate Attack with the appropriate modifiers to turn it into a muscle-powered melee attack, you can do that. It'll cost more than 7 CP.

Trying to build something that replicates all the rules to exactly mimic all the effects of the mundane muscle-powered attacks is... difficult. Awkward enough, in fact, that the Imbuements system was invented pretty much to sidestep the problem. "A character can wield a weapon and grant it an Armor Divisor and / or additional damage" sounds like a textbook case for Imbuements. (Additional damage is more simply built as Striking ST.)

If you want the ability to gain the extra power from the powered armor, build it as though the user had the higher strength. It's weaker than you paid for when out of the armor, but them's the breaks. If that really bugs you, you can try to work out an Accessibility based on the percentage of time the attack would actually be used when not in the armor. (No doubt as little as the PCs can arrange.)

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'm assuming this is meant to replace the weapon's normal damage (if it's meant to stack, it would need Follow-Up, which doesn't allow for Armor Divisor, although I'd allow it)

Follow-Up disallows Armor Divisor because it doesn't make sense in that context. The carrier attack has already penetrated the armor; a Follow-Up doesn't have to do so, so AD serves no purpose.

I suppose you might allow AD on the Follow-Up if it's meant to be literally a second attack following exactly behind the first to land in the same spot, so if the first attack fails to penetrate, the FU gets to attack the DR as well rather than simply failing to take effect because the carrier didn't penetrate. But Follow-Ups are often a secondary effect of the carrier, not a second sword / bullet / missile following the first one in.