[Powers] Making Affliction- and DoT/Cyclic-based characters viable and effective

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If you eliminate the HT penalty for recovery from stunning, or make it a separate advantage, it's more reasonable.

Yes, separating the initial penalty from the recovery penalty would be more flexible, too.

[naloth]

Even if you treat stunning as a margin of success where each point that the HT check fails by stuns for 1 sec (which is how I play stunning anyway) it's still under-priced at that cost.

Affliction is an interesting mechanic but simply repricing isn't a good fix. I would rather see a major overhaul. How about GURPS: Powers-Ups 3: Afflictions Revised?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by naloth

Even if you treat stunning as a margin of success where each point that the HT check fails by stuns for 1 sec (which is how I play stunning anyway) it's still under-priced at that cost.

May I point out that for the same cost as the innate attack at -17 (44 base points) you can get an 11d6 toxic attack? That will one-shot most targets who will be affected by the other. In any case, 'remove the HT penalty' means 'target gets to roll vs HT every turn' -- i.e. it is a standard stunned condition.

In the end, the problems are that (1) stunned (without recovery checks) is actually an incapacitating condition worth +50% or more, and (2) limitation stacking breaks down at high values.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

May I point out that for the same cost as the innate attack at -17 (44 base points) you can get an 11d6 toxic attack? That will one-shot most targets who will be affected by the other.

I don't find the usefulness equal.

Toxic attacks don't have any effect on those ItMH. In many games there will be a large number of targets that are completely immune to this attack. Aside from that, if DR or IT:DR is available the effect will vary from lethal to ineffective.

The stunning affliction can affect anything and it's perfectly safe to use.
You can go around indiscriminately shooting everyone with it.

In any case, 'remove the HT penalty' means 'target gets to roll vs HT every turn' -- i.e. it is a standard stunned condition.

While that makes Stunning somewhat worthless it does nothing to fix other Afflictions.

How about Affliction 21 (Daze +50%) [75]? That's HT-20 or you stand there like an idiot for minutes equal to the margin of failure.

In the end, the problems are that (1) stunned (without recovery checks) is actually an incapacitating condition worth +50% or more, and (2) limitation stacking breaks down at high values.

Arguably by RAW you could end up permanently stunned. If you allow a resistant roll at all the effect should be shorter than a comparably priced Daze.

[cccwebs]

Toxic attacks don't have any effect on those ItMH. In many games there will be a large number of targets that are completely immune to this attack. Aside from that, if DR or IT:DR is available the effect will vary from lethal to ineffective.

Actually, ItMH won't stop the toxic attack unless the attack is modified with Resistable. Though, ItMH will make a character immune to many types of Afflictions.

[Sam Baughn]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

The trouble is that Affliction only becomes insanely overpriced when you slap a powerful effect on it (e.g., Heart Attack, Unconsciousness, most Advantages). I think it'd make more sense to just define certain enhancements as only applying to the first level. So if you have Affliction (Heart Attack), it becomes a 40/+10 ability, plus any other modifiers that you add.

The easy way to do that would be to make 'hard to resist' an enhancement for afflictions. I'd peg it at around +40% (making it slightly more points efficient than Malediction and lots of Will if you just want the attack).

[naloth]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Actually, ItMH won't stop the toxic attack unless the attack is modified with Resistable. Though, ItMH will make a character immune to many types of Afflictions.

From Toxic: "Your attack inflicts cellular damage, in the manner of disease, poison, or radiation." All of those are metabolic hazards.

Affliction doesn't have any built-in limitation to prevent them from working against ItMH. Affliction w/Unconsciousness and Limitation: Only Electrical is the canon way to do "Dampen" (Powers, p139). Likewise the affliction from Electrified Skin should work equally well on machines and people.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by naloth

From Toxic: "Your attack inflicts cellular damage, in the manner of disease, poison, or radiation." All of those are metabolic hazards.

Affliction doesn't have any built-in limitation to prevent them from working against ItMH. Affliction w/Unconsciousness and Limitation: Only Electrical is the canon way to do "Dampen" (Powers, p139). Likewise the affliction from Electrified Skin should work equally well on machines and people.

Countered with "You are naturally resistant (or even immune) to noxious items or substances that are not direct, physical attacks. This gives you a bonus on all HT rolls to resist incapacitation or injury from such things." from Characters p80 under Resistant. If the toxic attack doesn't add Resistable*, then the Resistant advantage (which is what ItMH is) doesn't apply. As for working against Affliction, if said affliction is built as a metabolic hazzard, then ItMH will provide its benefit.

edit - more than Resistable would apply. Malediction could be substituted for Resistable

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Countered with "You are naturally resistant (or even immune) to noxious items or substances that are not direct, physical attacks. This gives you a bonus on all HT rolls to resist incapacitation or injury from such things." from Characters p80 under Resistant. If the toxic attack doesn't add Resistable*, then the Resistant advantage (which is what ItMH is) doesn't apply. As for working against Affliction, if said affliction is built as a metabolic hazzard, then ItMH will provide its benefit.

edit - more than Resistable would apply. Malediction could be substituted for Resistable

The issue of Toxic attacks is besides the point.

*Vicky puts on the official Keeper Hat.*
ItMH doesn't grant immunity to Toxic attacks. Rather, Toxic Attacks have the innate limitation of not working against many targets, including machines without metabolisms etc.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

If the toxic attack doesn't add Resistable*, then the Resistant advantage (which is what ItMH is) doesn't apply.

Generally I use ItMH, but it really is for resistant rolls.

By RAW, anything non-cellular is immune to Toxic attacks. This explicitly includes machines (in the description of Toxic) and should also elementals (metal, earth, water, and fire).

Given the Elemental and Machine meta-traits is there an advantage you would point to or is immunity to Toxic attacks just a 0 point feature of calling yourself non-cellular?

As for working against Affliction, if said affliction is built as a metabolic hazzard, then ItMH will provide its benefit.

Sure, if you limit it that way. As a default ability, though, there's nothing metabolic about an Affliction. It could be a mystic coil as easily as a poison to cause paralysis.