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 10-16-2019, 05:19 PM   #111
awesomenessofme1
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
I was thinking of this as a projection, but tossing it up and having it go off on its own is problematic with gadget limitations. Sure, you can give it the DR/HP, but what do you do about "stolen" ? Generally gadgets that aren't in your possession can easily be claimed by someone else.

Also, wouldn't you lose every other advantage if you didn't have hold of it?
Nah, you're misinterpreting it. The sword that gets tossed is also a force construct. You need to be wearing the shard (as an amulet, bracelet, ring, piercing, etc, though those might affect the value of Gadget) to summon either the sword or the companion, and if the shard is taken away or broken, if either is active, it instantly disappears.

Last edited by awesomenessofme1; 10-16-2019 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Mistakes
awesomenessofme1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 01:48 PM   #112
awesomenessofme1
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

I'm working on the full character sheet of Shard, and I just realized some ambiguity with the shard as I built it. If you have an Ally with Summonable as part of an AA, would killing the Ally burn out the whole AA for 24 hours or just stop you from summoning the Ally for that time?
awesomenessofme1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 01:55 PM   #113
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Swords generally should be represented by Melee Attack (if they can also attack at a range, that is a separate ability or an alternative ability). For example:

Swords of Light: Burning Attack 2d (Armor Divisor, /5, +150%; Link, +10%; Melee Attack, 1-2, Destructive Parry, Dual Weapon, +0%; Super, -10%) [25] plus Burning Attack 2d (Armor Divisor, /2, +50%; Increased Range, 100 yards, +95%; Jet, +0%; Link, +10%; Super, -10%; Variable, +5%) [25]. Whenever you attack with the Swords of Light, you also release a jet of light from the swords that can harm targets up to 100 yards away, though you can adjust the intensity of the jet from 0d to 2d damage.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 02:01 PM   #114
awesomenessofme1
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
Swords generally should be represented by Melee Attack (if they can also attack at a range, that is a separate ability or an alternative ability).
Melee attacks should only be built as Innate Attacks if the attack is independent of the strength of the user. A sword constructed from force projection is dependent on the strength of the user, thus Natural Weapon is the better fit.
awesomenessofme1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 03:07 PM   #115
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Natural Weapon was only mentioned once in a single Pyramid article from what I understand, so it is not RAW because it was not published in any books. Right now, the only RAW way to represent a ST-based melee attack is either a) Melee Attack with ST-based or b) Claws, Strikers, or Teeth. In general, it is cheaper and more effective just to purchase the attack without ST-based (since you also have to purchase any additional enhancements for ST as well).

For example, any let us say that you have a ST 10 character and wish to have a Reach 1-2 2d impaling/4d cutting melee attack. In the former case, you would purchase Cutting Attack 3d for the swing (Melee Attack, Reach 1-2, ST-based, +80) [38] plus Impaling Attack 1d+2 for the thrust (AA; Melee Attack, Reach 1-2, ST-based, +80) [5]. In the latter case, you purchase Cutting Attack 4d (Melee, Reach 1-2, -20%) [23] to represent the swing plus Impaling Attack 2d (Melee, Reach 1-2, -20%) [3] to represent the thrust. In effect you would save 17 CP by ignoring ST.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 03:14 PM   #116
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Quote:
Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1 View Post
Melee attacks should only be built as Innate Attacks if the attack is independent of the strength of the user. A sword constructed from force projection is dependent on the strength of the user, thus Natural Weapon is the better fit.
While Natural Weapon is nonstandard GURPS (it was in an Alternate GURPS issue of Pyramid for a reason), I absolutely agree that it’s the best fit here. Then again, part of me wants to replace Claws, Innate Attack, Striker, and Teeth with appropriately-modified Natural Weapons, so I might not be the best person to make a ruling here.

One thing that could be interesting would be to give characters who have bonded to a Shard some degree of TK (wouldn’t take much, given the Shards’ light weights) that only works to bring the Shard to them, as well as a Detect (Shard) ability. Both of these would work even when separated from their Shard, and would be useful for getting it back. I’d personally offset it with some sort of Disadvantage representing an unhealthy obsession with the Shard (it came to us, precious), but that’s just me.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 03:29 PM   #117
awesomenessofme1
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
Natural Weapon was only mentioned once in a single Pyramid article from what I understand, so it is not RAW because it was not published in any books. Right now, the only RAW way to represent a ST-based melee attack is either a) Melee Attack with ST-based or b) Claws, Strikers, or Teeth. In general, it is cheaper and more effective just to purchase the attack without ST-based (since you also have to purchase any additional enhancements for ST as well).

For example, any let us say that you have a ST 10 character and wish to have a Reach 1-2 2d impaling/4d cutting melee attack. In the former case, you would purchase Cutting Attack 3d for the swing (Melee Attack, Reach 1-2, ST-based, +80) [38] plus Impaling Attack 1d+2 for the thrust (AA; Melee Attack, Reach 1-2, ST-based, +80) [5]. In the latter case, you purchase Cutting Attack 4d (Melee, Reach 1-2, -20%) [23] to represent the swing plus Impaling Attack 2d (Melee, Reach 1-2, -20%) [3] to represent the thrust. In effect you would save 17 CP by ignoring ST.
1) I didn't say it was RAW. I said it was the better fit.
2) Saying it "appeared in" a Pyramid article is a bit misleading. It was the sole focus of a Pyramid article.
3) I've already used it like 3 times in this thread, so why the issue now?
4) With the increased ST from the template, the effective damage of the NW is about 5d, 7d with Brawling damage bonus (don't have my sheets with me). That would be either very expensive or much less effective as an Innate Attack.

So, anyone have a comment on my Ally/AA question?
awesomenessofme1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 03:30 PM   #118
awesomenessofme1
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
While Natural Weapon is nonstandard GURPS (it was in an Alternate GURPS issue of Pyramid for a reason), I absolutely agree that it’s the best fit here. Then again, part of me wants to replace Claws, Innate Attack, Striker, and Teeth with appropriately-modified Natural Weapons, so I might not be the best person to make a ruling here.

One thing that could be interesting would be to give characters who have bonded to a Shard some degree of TK (wouldn’t take much, given the Shards’ light weights) that only works to bring the Shard to them, as well as a Detect (Shard) ability. Both of these would work even when separated from their Shard, and would be useful for getting it back. I’d personally offset it with some sort of Disadvantage representing an unhealthy obsession with the Shard (it came to us, precious), but that’s just me.
Good idea, but it doesn't fit here. The shard has to be on one's person to grant abilities.
awesomenessofme1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 03:48 PM   #119
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Quote:
Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1 View Post
Good idea, but it doesn't fit here. The shard has to be on one's person to grant abilities.
I was thinking along the lines of extended exposure modifying the user on a metaphysical level. This could take the form of some abilities not requiring (but perhaps being weakened without) the Shard, specific “retrieve the Shard,” abilities, upgrades to existing abilities (or even outright new ones, like messing with the forcefield to fly), etc. Of course, your setting, your choice.

As for AA, a summonable Ally dying has a similar effect to a burnout, which I think RAW “locks in” the ability. However, as you can add a highly-Limited UK2 to avoid this (Mortal, Hindrance, Requires Ritual, etc), then just dismiss and resummon the “dead” Ally, I’d probably let you switch back to the sword without any real issue, but be unable to resummon the Ally until 24 hours have passed. Then again, I may be mixing up Summonable and Conjurable...
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 05:36 PM   #120
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: [Supers] Malice - A low-powered supers setting

Quote:
Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1 View Post
I'm working on the full character sheet of Shard, and I just realized some ambiguity with the shard as I built it. If you have an Ally with Summonable as part of an AA, would killing the Ally burn out the whole AA for 24 hours or just stop you from summoning the Ally for that time?
AA wasn't really made with Ally in mind. Fortunately, you have the frequency of appearance set to "always" and tacked on "summonable" so it's not like the Ally can't be treated as transforming into something else. Rules-wise there are drawbacks to using Ally besides what you've mentioned as Allies are supposed to be more NPCish, independent, and have the potential to be killed. This doesn't seem to fit the trade off for a disposable minion.

I'd prefer basing this off something else, but many of those choices would make it more of a directed (homing) attack advantage instead of being somewhat autonomous.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
supers

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 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.