04-04-2007, 12:55 AM | #1 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Using Tox with No Wounding+Side Effect/Symptom instead of Affliction?
Greetings, all!
Does anybody use Tox attacks with Side Effects or Symptoms plus No Wounding instead of Afflictions for any possible reason? Is it considered Rules-legal? Why yes/no? Thanks! |
04-04-2007, 02:00 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum
|
Re: Using Tox with No Wounding+Side Effect/Symptom instead of Affliction?
I think I've used at least one writeup that used that combo, yes. It's definitely legal. Something similar (using Dominance instead of Symptoms) was done in GURPS Fantasy for vampires.
__________________
Reverend Pee Kitty of the Order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Twitter) (LJ) MyGURPS: My house rules and GURPS resources.
#SJGamesLive: I answered questions about GURPS After the End and more! {Watch Video} - {Read Transcript} |
04-04-2007, 07:38 AM | #3 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between.
|
Re: Using Tox with No Wounding+Side Effect/Symptom instead of Affliction?
Using the No Wounding modifier for Symptoms isn't supported by the RAW.
Quote:
Quote:
Side Effects however refer to penetrating damage, so zap away.
__________________
Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane. Philip K. Dick, Valis |
||
04-04-2007, 03:52 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum
|
Re: Using Tox with No Wounding+Side Effect/Symptom instead of Affliction?
Depends on how you interpret No Wounding. If you track how much damage "would be done" and when it "would be healed", Symptoms works fine with No Wounding.
__________________
Reverend Pee Kitty of the Order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Twitter) (LJ) MyGURPS: My house rules and GURPS resources.
#SJGamesLive: I answered questions about GURPS After the End and more! {Watch Video} - {Read Transcript} |
04-05-2007, 09:40 AM | #5 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: Using Tox with No Wounding+Side Effect/Symptom instead of Affliction?
Quote:
Now, I know it does say "healed", but cherry picking that wording while ignoring the "loss" section at the top I think is a stretch. You could, of course, play it by having the targets *pretend* like the damage penetrated. But imho, that creates some wonky book-keeping (especially if they then suffer *real* damage). I wouldn't allow it, and I don't think the RAW supports it. |
|
Tags |
symptoms |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|