Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-13-2017, 01:40 PM   #31
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore View Post
It's, why is the appropriately sized lever doing less damage unlevered attacks for Pixies.
A pixie-scale staff isn't an appropriately-sized lever, for pixie-scale strength. Pixies at ST 4, or whatever (I can't remember the exact default ST for the template), are orders of magnitude stronger than a ST 10 human shrunk down to SM -6. So yes, this is exactly like the difference between being punched by an unlikely viscous and coordinated child versus being hit by a twig weilded by the same kid.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2017, 03:12 PM   #32
ravenfish
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

There doesn't have to be a lever involved. A katar thrust, which amounts to a punch with a blade on the end, will do far less damage when wielded by a pixie than a bladeless punch made by that same pixie. Thia strikes me as failing a sanity check.
__________________
I predicted GURPS:Dungeon Fantasy several hours before it came out and all I got was this lousy sig.
ravenfish is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2017, 05:01 PM   #33
Colarmel
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Northeast Kansas
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenfish View Post
There doesn't have to be a lever involved. A katar thrust, which amounts to a punch with a blade on the end, will do far less damage when wielded by a pixie than a bladeless punch made by that same pixie. Thia strikes me as failing a sanity check.
I agree that thrusting damage shouldn't be hugely affected by SM changes, except that it may move down a wounding category - a pixie's rapier probably ought do piercing rather than impaling damage on SM 0 creatures.

But a swung staff? That's never going to be an effective choice.
Colarmel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2017, 05:09 PM   #34
Kalzazz
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

Thats why I suggested using LTC 2 rules and somehow getting rid of the Min ST problem

A ST 5 pixie wielding a SM -6 katar would do 1d-4 Imp in that case, compared to 1d-5 cr for a punch

Even if you keep the Min ST rule, you are doing 1d-5 imp vs 1d-5 cr
Kalzazz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2017, 02:47 AM   #35
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenfish View Post
There doesn't have to be a lever involved. A katar thrust, which amounts to a punch with a blade on the end, will do far less damage when wielded by a pixie than a bladeless punch made by that same pixie. Thia strikes me as failing a sanity check.
Don't forget a katar being imp* will be doing a minimum 1 point of damage for a 2* point injury. but a successful cr punch can be reduced to 0 or less damage (and often will be at this level). for instance a ST5 pixie will be punching at 1d-5 unless they have skill bonuses or doing an AoA etc.

This raises it's own question of course, but basically GURPS combat at this level raises lots of questions!



*although if you adjust injury mods due to low SM this might change

Last edited by Tomsdad; 10-14-2017 at 05:04 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2017, 10:58 AM   #36
Hellboy
On Notice
 
Hellboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

I thinkni could more reliably cause a puncture wound on my flesh pinching a toothpick than using finger poke...

Or even punching for that matter.

Of course it is u likely to cause me to bleed severely unless I hit a vein/artery. Although it isn't a cutting attack so that shouldn't be possible...

MA137 does not mention small piercing but maybe "piercing" refers to all 3 classes?

Damage penalty is so high a toothpick probably just relies on the 1 minimum damage rule.
Hellboy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2017, 12:33 PM   #37
ravenfish
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Don't forget a katar being imp* will be doing a minimum 1 point of damage for a 2* point injury. but a successful cr punch can be reduced to 0 or less damage (and often will be at this level). for instance a ST5 pixie will be punching at 1d-5 unless they have skill bonuses or doing an AoA etc.

This raises it's own question of course, but basically GURPS combat at this level raises lots of questions!



*although if you adjust injury mods due to low SM this might change
Fair enough, but that doesn't help with thrust/crushing weapons. Moreover, the results become very odd when dealing with very small creatures who aren't very weak (which might be due to magic or cinematic reality, but might also be realistic for technological constructs powered by something other than muscle). A ST10, SM -5 creature (whether he's a Nac Mac Feegle or a small but powerful robot) would punch for 1d-3 (and be capable of harming unarmored and even lightly armored opponents), but, if he strapped a cestus over his fist, would suddenly deal 1d-7 damage (and be literally incapable of hurting a fly).

My instinct is to go with the Low Tech Companion scaling rules as causing less ridiculous results, or to use T-Bone's GULLIVER if I am particularly concerned about scaling. I have a suspicion, in fact, that the Dungeon Fantasy scaling rules were at least in part designed as a "nerf" to small characters (who get useful bonuses in combat and, particularly if not restricted to realistic strength, remarkably few penalties- "harder to hit in combat" tends to be much more important in Dungeon Fantasy than "has trouble reaching the top shelf") rather than for plausibility or even playibility.
__________________
I predicted GURPS:Dungeon Fantasy several hours before it came out and all I got was this lousy sig.

Last edited by ravenfish; 10-14-2017 at 12:37 PM.
ravenfish is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2017, 04:55 PM   #38
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

Re: GURPS Fantasy Tech 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
This is why I think the rules for, I'm guessing, Buster-Swords-with-the-serial-numbers-filed-off in the new book might be appropriate
For what its worth, it covers two kinds of giant weapon:
  1. A very long blade, but not a thick cleaver of a blade. Its width is still measured in inches (although more inches than a "regular" two handed sword) and its thickness is no more than a regular sword. This is the "semi-realistic" version, where part of the "semi-" comes from a very big sword being able to support itself in combat with such a thin cross section.
  2. The Buster-Sword style where the blade may not be that much longer than a sensible two-handed sword, but its width is measured in feet and it may be rectangular with a clipped point, rather than tapered. This is the "I really don't care about realism version", which ironically is at least more plausible when it comes to surviving being used as a weapon... but it's a ridiculous weapon.

Michael Cthulhu on Youtube makes Buster Sword replicas (along with other big giant swords, and similarly oversized fantasy weapons) at correct proportions, out of serious steel (not, eg, honeycomb aluminum or something else more lightweight). And then he "demonstrates" them. By this point he's got quite a bit of practice in swinging around ridiculously huge and heavy weapons, but in the demonstrations its more "Michael getting swung around by the weapon".

And then sometimes he puts flamethrowers on them. He has all the fashion and design sense of a DF PC.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Grand Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
Bruno is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2017, 10:01 AM   #39
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Pixie Weapon Damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenfish View Post
Fair enough, but that doesn't help with thrust/crushing weapons. Moreover, the results become very odd when dealing with very small creatures who aren't very weak (which might be due to magic or cinematic reality, but might also be realistic for technological constructs powered by something other than muscle). A ST10, SM -5 creature (whether he's a Nac Mac Feegle or a small but powerful robot) would punch for 1d-3 (and be capable of harming unarmored and even lightly armored opponents), but, if he strapped a cestus over his fist, would suddenly deal 1d-7 damage (and be literally incapable of hurting a fly).

My instinct is to go with the Low Tech Companion scaling rules as causing less ridiculous results, or to use T-Bone's GULLIVER if I am particularly concerned about scaling. I have a suspicion, in fact, that the Dungeon Fantasy scaling rules were at least in part designed as a "nerf" to small characters (who get useful bonuses in combat and, particularly if not restricted to realistic strength, remarkably few penalties- "harder to hit in combat" tends to be much more important in Dungeon Fantasy than "has trouble reaching the top shelf") rather than for plausibility or even playibility.
To be honest if I had a ST10 1' tall humanoids, then I really wouldn't worry too much about the MinST Rules anyway.

I have to say though if I was going to have lots of very small action I would just recalibrate the SM scale, because as I mentioned above so much gets problematic at this scale. And I think baseline vs. big works better than baseline vs. small or small vs. small.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.