[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Easy to Kill

[johndallman]

Easy to Kill [-2/level] is a mundane physical disadvantage, the opposite of the Hard to Kill advantage. Each level gives -1 to HT rolls for death checks, and for any other HT roll where failure would mean immediate death. This does not affect other HT rolls, or HT-based skills. You can buy as many levels of this disadvantage as you like, provided that you don’t reduce your effective HT for death checks below 3. Essentially, this is reduced HT for the purpose of rolls vs. death. The disadvantage appeared at GURPS 4e.

There is no Easy to Subdue disadvantage, which would be the opposite of Hard to Subdue, but its mechanics seem fairly obvious: [-2/level], giving -1 HT/level to the same rolls as Hard to Subdue. The reason it doesn’t exist, I suspect, is that it would make selling off the components of HT worth more than HT. One level of HT [10] currently amounts to one level of Hard to Kill [2], a quarter of a point of Basic Speed [5] and one FP [3].

Bio-Tech uses Easy to Kill in the design of living bombs, to make them more reliable at exploding. Lands Out of Time has it as a disadvantage option for time-lost kids, and it’s a possible result on the Martial Arts lasting injuries tables. Supers uses it as an atmosphere adjustment knob: if non-super people have Easy to Kill, campaign tone darkens. Thaumatology warns against allowing characters with HT-based magic to sell off Basic Speed and FP, along with taking Easy to Kill. Zombies uses it in examples of merging racial and zombie templates, and How to Be a GURPS GM recommends it for cannon-fodder NPCs.

Obviously, Easy to Kill is a poor idea for a character who’s deliberately going adventuring. But it has its uses for modelling people dropped into adventures, NPCs, after-effects of serious injury, and stranger things. Has it been used in your games?

[WaterAndWindSpirit]

I tossed around the idea of putting it on an After The End mutant who has raven wings... And a very lightweight and fragile bone structure, like birds. It wasn't even the radiation that did this to her, but a prewar experiment on making super soldiers on her ancestors, and the fact that their soldiers are more fragile resulted in the project being discontinued. She's a sniper/demolition expert so she mitigates her disadvantage by reaching vantage points with her wings and sniping from there. It also means any armor she wears has to be tailor made.

[RogerBW]

It seems to me that the most likely use case for something like a typical PC is to make buying up HT cheaper. But it's not a great saving, particularly since this is usually one of the more important uses of HT.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by johndallman

There is no Easy to Subdue disadvantage, which would be the opposite of Hard to Subdue, but its mechanics seem fairly obvious: [-2/level], giving -1 HT/level to the same rolls as Hard to Subdue.

I have had this in my games for a long time. I never see players take "Easy to kill" but very often take "easy to subdue" and that's a good thing!
When playing cinematic or high powered games PC's easily reach effective HT:15 or 16 to stay conscious. This tends to result in PC's reaching -HPx5 before they fall unconscious. Which is not fun.

So I actively encourage high HT PC's to take "Easy to Subdue" so their characters have a chance to go down before they die.

...we also tend to play with an optional rule that allow people to voluntarily fail a "stay conscious roll". But sometimes the Character don't want to do that, even if the player want him to :D ...and then its nice for them to have easy to subdue.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by johndallman

One level of HT [10] currently amounts to one HP [2], a quarter of a point of Basic Speed [5] and one FP [3].

How are you deriving the one HP? In the rules as I understand them that one HP is a component of ST rather than HT.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by whswhs

How are you deriving the one HP? In the rules as I understand them that one HP is a component of ST rather than HT.

Mistakenly. Now fixed.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I would use Easy To Subdue more than Easy To Kill for the dual reasons of A) being killed being a condition both the PC and the player are likely to want to avoid (vs subdued, which players are more likely to take in stride) and B) for just not running games so intensely lethal that the latter is not likely to come up as often.

[Kromm]

In my experience, Easy to Kill doesn't often manifest via its physical effects on the character. Rather, it encourages the player to be cautious without the social burden of Cowardice or front-loaded death sentence of Combat Paralysis. In my experience, players of characters with low HT rolls to avoid death play their heroes as having a much more realistic view of the lethality of combat than those who have HT 12+ and Hard to Kill, who tend to assume they can blow through close to 6×HP and get patched up afterward.

[ericthered]

I would not use this advantage, because I the GM would feel like I'm playing chicken with the player: "Are we going to kill him? Come on, are we gonna?" I know many GM's don't struggle with this, but I do.



I'm still glad its in the book though, because its useful for afflictions, NPC's, and for general theory crafting.

[Railstar]

I think it works as a temporary consequence to severe injury from Martial Arts, and might look at that table more seriously. It's not as restrictive most of the time in the same way a crippling injury is, but would certainly encourage the injured martial artist to rethink whether a fight is really necessary - although I'd prefer it to be something long-term but temporary.

The combat monster who is so hale and hearty he can take massive injuries without dying, but those massive injuries make it more difficult for them to survive next time... so maybe they have to rethink how much they tank damage and try other things instead...

As for PCs, I never see it. PC disadvantages in my mind are an agreement between DM & player saying "I expect this to come into play." And I can't really think of ways to make death checks with an increased chance of failure fun.

For NPCs, it feels too much like DM fiat saying "this NPC is supposed to die" - which is the kind of thing I tend to avoid.

I like it for living bombs. I don't have my books handy right now, so I don't know if it can be taken alongside things like Supernatural Durability or Unkillable with Achilles Heels, the creature that can only be killed by certain means, but isn't that likely to survive those certain means.