New power for human males!

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Interesting. However there is a slight hiccup in the reasoning at 2a and 2aa, inasmuch as it posits a trait that would take effect against only about half of all predators.

It's classic humanocentric hubris. Maybe it's more a factor of just being huge males that stress them. And our awesome planet conquering carnivorous viciousness has nothing to do with it.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by corwyn

It already works that way; 30 points base cost + 10/additional level. So level 10 is "only" 120 points.

Curse my memory. In any case I still stand by the scope of my statement: I have no problem with the price of terror, but the same complaint for afflictions applies to terror. if you are in the group that find the cost/level of afflictions too high then you should consider similar reductions for terror.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by starslayer

Curse my memory. In any case I still stand by the scope of my statement: I have no problem with the price of terror, but the same complaint for afflictions applies to terror. if you are in the group that find the cost/level of afflictions too high then you should consider similar reductions for terror.

Would reducing the cost to 5/level do it, or would that be going too far?

And what is the general solution for afflictions - halving further levels?

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It's classic humanocentric hubris. Maybe it's more a factor of just being huge males that stress them. And our awesome planet conquering carnivorous viciousness has nothing to do with it.

Nope.

We found that exposure of mice and rats to male but not female experimenters produces pain inhibition. Male-related stimuli induced a robust physiological stress response that results in stress-induced analgesia. This effect could be replicated with T-shirts worn by men, bedding material from gonadally intact and unfamiliar male mammals, and presentation of compounds secreted from the human axilla. Experimenter sex can thus affect apparent baseline responses in behavioral testing.

Rats would probably do it, but mice are freaked out by the presence of rats anyway.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by corwyn

Would reducing the cost to 5/level do it, or would that be going too far?

And what is the general solution for afflictions - halving further levels?

I believe that the stated solutions in other threads for afflictions was to reduce there /level cost to 5.

Reasoning: Unlike innate attacks, where every level grants a noticeable increase in effectiveness afflictions are binary, yes it works, or no it does not, afflictions that have +300% in mods should see the effect properly charged for, but not the reduction in resistance since 'right out of the gate' you should be experiencing an ~50% effectiveness for the trait, to charge the same cost for an additional 7% effectiveness is too much (the jump from 'raw resistance roll' to roll at -1). Innate attacks on the other hand literally do have there effectiveness multiplied by there level. A level 1 innate attack does 1d6 damage, and a level 2 2d6, and a level 50 50d6. By comparison a level 1 affliction sees ~50% a level 2 sees ~57%, a level 5 sees ~80% (before factoring in increased resistances from foes).

Once you start factoring in resistances it falls even more into innate attacks favour: If a foe has 5 DR you need 5 levels of affliction to overcome that just to get back to the ~50% effectiveness; if your foe has 5 DR vs an innate attack, 2 levels will handle the DR and you will see full effect for the remaining 3 (on average).

Further complicating this issue is the availability of Malediction, which for a single +100/200/300% removes 'levels' from the resistance roll; you get to roll on a skill/stat and use that result to fight against a foes stat/skill

-------------------
My thoughts on this:
-------------------

Keeping in mind what I am about to suggest here is NOT something I have tested, but now that I am looking at the numbers I think it may be fair.

Increase the base cost of an affliction to 20, reduced resistance costs 2/level. This keeps the cost appreciable for tremendous effects like instant death, but still allows for some useful 'space' before it just becomes more cost effective to get a malediction (It also makes the increased cost of less desirable from a pure point comparison point of view)

---------------

Terror on the other hand DOES see its effectiveness increase with every level. Because it drives someone further and further down on the fright check table. If you have only base level terror then you are going to see the normal gamut of terror effects at ~50%, if you have terror at level 20 you are going to see people goes mad (literally) in your presence, you will have the very horrible ability to burn other peoples character points because of imposed permanent disadvantages.

However until you hit a good penalty to resistance on your terror you see the reduced effectiveness that is present in afflictions; level 2 is only trivially better then level 1 (not the +33% better that putting ten extra points into a 30 point trait should see).

I wonder then if it might not be better to separate the resistance roll from the fright check penalty. IE- you can have Terror 15, 1; -15 to resistance, +1 on the fright check table. That would be a VERY effective terror almost everyone gets scared in your presence, but the results would be predominantly mundane ones- no one is instantly reduced into a gibbering heap, only people who roll high on there fright check table roll see permanent damage.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anders

Nope.



Rats would probably do it, but mice are freaked out by the presence of rats anyway.

So it has nothing to do with predators, and just maleness of mammals? That proves my point then. It has nothing to do with awesome macho carnivorousness.

[Anders]

Well, mice are afraid of rats because rats kill mice. Since I don't know what gonadally intact males they tried I can't say if they were predators or not.

My guess is that it's testosterone, because it has to be something ubiquitous yet male-specific.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anders

Well, mice are afraid of rats because rats kill mice. Since I don't know what gonadally intact males they tried I can't say if they were predators or not.

My guess is that it's testosterone, because it has to be something ubiquitous yet male-specific.

One easy way to test that would be to use sweat from juvenile hyenas. The females have more testosterone than males.

There are more sex aspects to odor than that hormone.

Most gay men have distinctly different smells, and I've smelled a few "aggressive" scent females.

[jason taylor]

What would be the survival advantage? Human males don't have a particular propensity for hunting mice.

Now if it was deer it would be easier to understand.

Maybe it's just a disproportion of males in that particular lab and the mice haven't learned to associate female humans with male ones?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

So it has nothing to do with predators, and just maleness of mammals? That proves my point then. It has nothing to do with awesome macho carnivorousness.

Female cats hunt as much as male ones.