Rate of Fire on a Binding Attack?

[laserdog]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Yes, of course it does. So if you have Binding 20 (Rapid Fire, RoF 10) and you manage to hit someone with 6 strands, they're now splatted with ST 25 webbing.

The rules only mention this as an option on a binding attack that has targeted someone who has already been successfully bound.

I'd personally play the above as requiring 6x ST 20 checks. If you succeed the first 2, then fail the third, the next 3x can layer on as +1 ST for further escapes.

This interpretation also nips the Binding 1 (RoF 300) build in the bud, since it lacks the ability to successfully bind you in the first place (20x rolls vs ST 1).

(Although the question of whether a roll would even be required to shrug off such lilliputian binding attempts is a separate question).

[zorg]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Area Effect doesn't go with Jet. Rapid Fire doesn't go with Cone or Jet. But nothing prevents me from joining Area Effect and Rapid Fire by RAW&P.

I agree. I thought I remembered something to the contrary, but I can't find it in the book.

Or do you think that a grenade that misses the target, but still falls within the explosion radius of the target does no damage to it?

Point taken.

I guess that most things get fishy with RoF 300. In the "Let's twink Gurps" thread by Jürgen (back in the day), there was a RoF 300 Vision-Based AoE attack which was quite deadly, too.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Molokh

The number of direct hits. Those shots that missed use the scatter rule, which means that they fall somewhere depending on MoF and a 1d6 for direction. Or do you think that a grenade that misses the target, but still falls within the explosion radius of the target does no damage to it?

The scatter doesn't matter when you're been hit by the initial shot.

Originally Posted by laserdog

I'd personally play the above as requiring 6x ST 20 checks. If you succeed the first 2, then fail the third, the next 3x can layer on as +1 ST for further escapes.

This interpretation also nips the Binding 1 (RoF 300) build in the bud, since it lacks the ability to successfully bind you in the first place (20x rolls vs ST 1).

(Although the question of whether a roll would even be required to shrug off such lilliputian binding attempts is a separate question).

Think of someone binding the target using sewing thread, easy enough to break one layer, but wrap him in 10-12 layers and he might struggle.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by zorg

I agree. I thought I remembered something to the contrary, but I can't find it in the book.
[...]
I guess that most things get fishy with RoF 300. In the "Let's twink Gurps" thread by Jürgen (back in the day), there was a RoF 300 Vision-Based AoE attack which was quite deadly, too.

Meh, besides, if you're gonna go that way, why not just give them Very Rapid Fire on top of the RoF, that'll get you to the 20+ strand level on a hit.

[makai]

Originally Posted by Outtotheblack

Or, optionally, you could stack a ridiculuos level of Accuracy on Binding.

Binding 1 (RoF 300, +300%, Acc +300, 1500%) 38pts.

does Acc add directly to MoS? or do you have to do some ready actions to use it?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by makai

does Acc add directly to MoS? or do you have to do some ready actions to use it?

Acc adds directly to your skill after at least one Aim manoeuvre. However, some things partially or completely negate Acc and/or Aim. RoF bonuses are always there OTOH.

[makai]

Originally Posted by laserdog

The rules only mention this as an option on a binding attack that has targeted someone who has already been successfully bound.

I'd personally play the above as requiring 6x ST 20 checks. If you succeed the first 2, then fail the third, the next 3x can layer on as +1 ST for further escapes.

This interpretation also nips the Binding 1 (RoF 300) build in the bud, since it lacks the ability to successfully bind you in the first place (20x rolls vs ST 1).

(Although the question of whether a roll would even be required to shrug off such lilliputian binding attempts is a separate question).

so, are you saying that you get to roll against the attack the instant it hits you, and if you make it, it has no effect? does that sound wrong to anyone?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by makai

so, are you saying that you get to roll against the attack the instant it hits you, and if you make it, it has no effect? does that sound wrong to anyone?

Ah, it's one of them houserules. Has its own uses too.

[yffub]

Originally Posted by makai

so, are you saying that you get to roll against the attack the instant it hits you, and if you make it, it has no effect? does that sound wrong to anyone?

It does to me. Breaking Free is considered an action, not a defense, and takes place on the turn of the person attempting to break free. So a Binding ST of 1 would bind you until it was your turn, forcing you to waste an action to break free.

Of course, Binding doesn't mention huge differences in ST. In a normal Grapple, a grappler with less than half the ST of his victim does NOT stop the victim from moving (unless his added weight over-encumbers him). Would this also apply to low ST Binding attacks?

[HeroPenguin]

Originally Posted by laserdog

The rules only mention this as an option on a binding attack that has targeted someone who has already been successfully bound.

I'd personally play the above as requiring 6x ST 20 checks. If you succeed the first 2, then fail the third, the next 3x can layer on as +1 ST for further escapes.

This interpretation also nips the Binding 1 (RoF 300) build in the bud, since it lacks the ability to successfully bind you in the first place (20x rolls vs ST 1).

(Although the question of whether a roll would even be required to shrug off such lilliputian binding attempts is a separate question).

Well, what would you do about two Grapplers that use Coordinated Attack from Powers or Martial Arts to grapple the same target at the same time. Use the high ST + 1/5 of others rule, or use your 2 ST checks to see if he escapes from both, or none at all?

I think it'd be wise for you to keep in mind that the instant a target is hit with any Binding attack, they are considered bound. So in the case of rapid fire, the first hit binds them, and every following hit is an additional layer. Subsequent turns have nothing to do with it, beyond the book assuming a RoF of 1 for a default Binding and thus not making space for the RoF situation.