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 09-03-2020, 06:30 AM   #21
Aldric
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
How so? I imagine that it was intended to protect entities without a functional biological nature (machines, spirits, undead, etc.). Diseases and poisons should not normally matter to a car.
I actually assumed toxic wouldn't work on them at all.
I was considering the fact that making it a Contact Agent turn it into a poison, or worse, Follow Up does
Aldric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2020, 07:13 AM   #22
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

No, toxic attacks work on everything unless they have the previously mentioned modifiers that make them biological agents (it is Immunity to Metabolic Hazards that gives protection though, as it represents the object being nonliving). Without Immunity to Metabolic Hazards, the object is alive in some fashion and is therefore vulnerable to biological hazards.

Since Toxic Attack does not have secondary effects, it is good for modeling non-hazard attacks that target the essence, soul, weave, etc. of an object without physical force or utter destruction. Such attacks would cause cars to malfunction, floors to buckle, walls to collapse, etc., such as a temporal attack that causes centuries to pass in an instant (days for a living target). It would also represent spacial attacks that warp an object from the inside, teleportation attacks that remove parts of an object, or phasing attacks that transfer pieces of an object into the Astral Plane.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2020, 04:03 PM   #23
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
No, toxic attacks work on everything unless they have the previously mentioned modifiers that make them biological agents (it is Immunity to Metabolic Hazards that gives protection though, as it represents the object being nonliving). Without Immunity to Metabolic Hazards, the object is alive in some fashion and is therefore vulnerable to biological hazards.

Since Toxic Attack does not have secondary effects, it is good for modeling non-hazard attacks that target the essence, soul, weave, etc. of an object without physical force or utter destruction. Such attacks would cause cars to malfunction, floors to buckle, walls to collapse, etc., such as a temporal attack that causes centuries to pass in an instant (days for a living target). It would also represent spacial attacks that warp an object from the inside, teleportation attacks that remove parts of an object, or phasing attacks that transfer pieces of an object into the Astral Plane.
It's also useful for being the base for non-standard damage. Radiation (IIRC) changes Toxic to rads damage, and I think Kromm threw around the idea of +450% for converting it to age damage in months, neither of which ItMH protects against.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2020, 04:28 PM   #24
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
How so? I imagine that it was intended to protect entities without a functional biological nature (machines, spirits, undead, etc.). Diseases and poisons should not normally matter to a car.
The "applies to all rolls to resist" portion of Resistant I think assumes there is a resistance roll. This applies to all Afflictions for sure (can't be removed) but I don't think it necessarily applies to Innate Attack unless you take the "Resistant" Limitation on it. Meaning that it's kinda questionable if the top level of Resistant (Immune, don't even bother rolling) actually works against non-Resistant attacks.

Anything defined as "disease" or "poison" is already protected against by ITMH (B81: the VC includes "Impervious to Disease" and "Impervious to Poison" which are Common alone). ITMH is basically the sum value of those two PLUS jet lag / altitude sickness / bends / sea sickness.

Whether or not those things have certain four modifiers (BA/CA/FU/RA) wouldn't matter: a disease or a poison which works even without those penetration modifiers would still be protected against, right?

Or maybe it's illegal to define something as a poison or disease without one of those modifiers?

"rolls to resist attacks that use these effects" is the phrase we see after "also"

So "these effects" seems to imply that using these 4 modifiers are a means of defining "these noxious effects". But what if you're talking about something which is not "NOXIOUS" at all?

Loss of HP to Toxic Attack and loss of FP to Fatigue attack appear to be one example of what is "noxious". Does it necessarily apply to ALL kinds of Afflictions though?

B158 (Susceptible) also uses the term:
You are extremely sensitive to a particular class of noxious items or
substances;
It gives a penalty to HT rolls, so you shouldn't be able to get points to be Susceptible to stuff where penalties don't matter because there's no resistance roll.

B80 specifies HT rolls too, I so I think resistant/immune in it's basic form only applies to things you resist with HT. If it's floated to something else (DX, IQ, etc) then it's no longer a HT roll and thus can't be a "metabolic hazard".

Instead you'd need to use non-metabolic resistant/immune such as B81 specifies under "Mental Resistance" which can give bonus/immunity against IQ/Will (and probably Per too) rolls.

I don't know if you can get resistance to rolls you would resist w/ DX.

There are HT rolls which fall outside the realm of 'metabolic' too, such as MA47's "Resistant to Neck Injury" for example helps about B370 / B404 which are HT rolls against attacker's ST to stop damage.

5-point immunity to resistable neck injuries is the same value as B61's "No Neck" though, which doesn't just stop resistable attacks but damage in general. So I can understand where lines of thought of 'immune' extending beyond resistable stuff to ALL stuff could come from.

Maybe this should be more expensive? Like require "Immunity to Neck Injury" [5] as a prereq for "No Neck [5]" so in total it costs 10?

Homogenous only includes 2 (No Brain, No Vitals) while Diffuse only include 3 (prior+No Blood) so both of these would still presumably have Eyes/Heads/Necks)

I kinda think No Neck should be worth fewer points to those with No Blood or Doesn't Breathe since those remove one of the larger advantages to targeting necks other than wound multipliers...

No Brain's "a blow to the skull or eye is treated no differently than a blow to the face" sounds like NB might remove the 2 DR of the skull though... does that seem right? Or do they just mean the effects of penetrating damage?

I get a vague impression that Eyes/Head/Neck/Vitals is the quartet intended for Homogenous and that only listing Brain/Vitals might be some kind of oversight. "no vulnerable internal organs, bones, muscles," sure doesn't sound like "I have vertebrae in spine/neck that could cause me problems"

Doubly so for "diffuse" since it explicitly says "no crippling injuries" and the eye can DEFINITELY be crippled normally. There's no "crippling the brain" or "crippling the face" mechanic, but the paralysis rules in MA sure sound like "crippling the torso" or "crippling the neck"
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2020, 04:44 PM   #25
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

Pretty sure ItMH blocks all toxic attacks unless specially enhanced:
Quote:
Originally Posted by B62
Toxic (tox)
Your attack inflicts cellular damage, in the manner of disease, poison, or radiation. It cannot normally affect machines.
As machines have no traits other than ItMH which would make them immune, the logical conclusion is that ItMH makes things generally immune to toxic.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2020, 05:21 PM   #26
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

It specifically says that Resistant applies to any Affliction, and any Fatigue and Toxic Attack, with Blood Agent, Contact Agent, Follow-Up, and Respiratory Agent. Immunity gives complete immunity to such attacks, regardless of whether they allow a resistance roll, Kromm has mentioned this more than a few times. When it comes to attacks, Immunity to Metabolic Hazards only protects against Afflictions, Fatigue Attacks, and Toxic Attacks with the above modifiers.

Last edited by AlexanderHowl; 09-03-2020 at 05:26 PM.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2020, 05:24 PM   #27
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Pretty sure ItMH blocks all toxic attacks unless specially enhanced:

As machines have no traits other than ItMH which would make them immune, the logical conclusion is that ItMH makes things generally immune to toxic.
B61 "Fatigue Attack" also says "cannot affect machines".

It's weird though, I'd rather just allow taking "Only on machines".

Seems strange since I actually imagine that "hypothermia" or "starvation" (or any other B104 "Hazard") could be things you could have machines experience, approximately.

You need "Doesn't Eat or Drink" to be immune to starvation, I don't think it's included in ITMH.

B263 doesn't include that, but the machine meta-trait's 0-point lack of FP means the mechanic of starvation is gone (think this came up last month in another thread?)

"eight-hour energy reserve and need refueling three times a day" is mentioned as what you have w/o Doesn't Eat

There was a breakdown of how you got 0 in Zombies (I think involving -10 FP = [-30])

3e's Doesn't Fatigue (Spirits 39) and No Extra Effort (Spirits 43) were predecessors. +15/-15 worked out to 0 points but it didn't actually involve losing your FP in either case. They just limited situations where you could involuntarily lose it, or voluntarily spend it.

Doesn't Fatigue didn't remove the need for food, so you could still lose FP due to starvation. DF only explicitly stopped running/swimming/combat ("and other strenuous activities") losses.

I'm not even sure if gas-guzzling cars even need that. Or maybe they do, but looking at a new trait...

If we look at human metabolism, you might view FP (self-renews by rest) as not reflective of raw incoming energy at all. Actual energy as in "food I just ate" is actually more like P119 Energy Reserve w/ Special Recharge.

You could actually take the -80% (lose 1 energy per second) because you could always have that energy drawn upon immediately in one of two ways:
1) to recharge FP (primary use)
2) to store as fat (backup use).

Fat would be the -70% version of Special Recharge. It only recovers by Leeching upon the Food ER, but does not fade away.

if the ability to store digested energy as fat is impeded (for example: insulin resistance: glucose-energy gets lost in the urine instead of stored as fat) then you wouldn't be able to recover that non-bleeding ER.

The "Slow Recharge" tiers here might actually be ways to construct something resembling Cole's modified FP rules (Last Gasp) since you can change 10m to 60m/1hr or 24hrs/1day with limitations on an ER.

This would require establishing each tier of ER as separate from base FP though.

Here's the idea for how P119 could do it:
Powers can still draw on normal FP; if they can’t, add -5% to the power modifier
Then you make Unhealing (FP instead of HP +0% -30)

Unfit for example at -15 makes FP lose at twice the rate and regain at half the rate.

So what you do is take "Not Unfit" advantage w/ "Costs Fatigue -5%" then also "can't draw on normal FP".

So what happens is your FP can't heal unless you pay ER from a "Mild Fatigue" or "Deep Fatigue" ER emulating Cole's idea. This could allow emulating LG functionality in a game which doesn't use it as the baseline rules.

These ERs would need to be limited to a "source" meaning they can't fuel non-source efforts. So they're off limits for fueling magic/psi/etc.

The 'source' is I guess 'biological'. Could take these on healing too.

If 1 FP / minute is too clunky here, I could see maybe 1 FP / 5 minutes being worth -1% ? Not enough to save points though...

Another idea is ignore "Costs Fatigue" limitation altogether and draw upon built-in rules of slower rates: P159 "Abilities and Exertion".

"Long-Term use" is per-hour.

So for example:
1) your Deep Fatigue ER is drained at a rate of 1 FP per hour you have "Cannot Heal Mild Fatigue ER" active
2) your Mild Fatigue ER is drained at a rate of 1 FP per hour you have "Cannot Heal FP" active.
This would prevent the silliness of "I can just suddenly enter the state of deep fatigue within seconds!".

Instead, it's a prolonged mechanic of reflecting constantly refueling your FP from your deep reserves of energy (let's say fat for DF, glycogen for MF) and not replenishing them.

You might be eating, but there would be a limit of how quickly your digestion could replenish your ERs, it would be slower than you could actually lose ER to refuel FP.

"No Cannot Heal FP" would automatically turn off whenever FP was at maximum (there's no need for it) and reflexively turn on whenever FP dropped.

digestion (re: Leech from your "stomach contents ER") would cost FP

The "glucose spike" ER would be the -80% one that leeches away at 1/second. It diffuses into the bladder, basically.

But you can avoid the bleed-off due to a reflexive leech of that energy first to replenish FP, then to replenish Mild Fatigue and Deep Fatigue ERs.

The latter however would take a longer amount of time, so the conversion ratio would not be very good.

1 FP/hour to recover Mild Fatigue (heals 1 ER per hour) is 1:1 for example, while 1FP/hour to recover Deep Fatigue (heals 1 ER per day) is 1:24.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2020, 06:04 PM   #28
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Pretty sure ItMH blocks all toxic attacks unless specially enhanced:

As machines have no traits other than ItMH which would make them immune, the logical conclusion is that ItMH makes things generally immune to toxic.
From another thread I had on this very subject, it sounds like the bolded is more saying "Toxic Attacks are assumed to have traits that make it not able to affect machines" and Kromm even pointed out how rare a toxic attack without those modifiers would normally be. It's very much intended to be for simulating poison, disease, etc. and all of that would be stopped by ItMH. Without any modifiers on Toxic damage, it is basically 'generic damage with zero upsides'.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2020, 07:22 PM   #29
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

Pretty much. It is actually less useful than Crushing for pure damage. For example, Crushing Attack 10d (Melee Attack, C, -30%; No Blunt Trauma, -20%; No Knockback, -10%) [20] is cheaper than Toxic Attack 10d (Melee Attack, C, -30%) [28]. Of course, Crushing Attack ends up being more expensive than Toxic Attack when you add all of the enhancements.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2020, 01:00 AM   #30
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: Delayed Onset, No Signature, Cyclic attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
Pretty much. It is actually less useful than Crushing for pure damage. For example, Crushing Attack 10d (Melee Attack, C, -30%; No Blunt Trauma, -20%; No Knockback, -10%) [20] is cheaper than Toxic Attack 10d (Melee Attack, C, -30%) [28]. Of course, Crushing Attack ends up being more expensive than Toxic Attack when you add all of the enhancements.
In that situation I'd call for the ABCs and point to B(asic). But I do see your point. I think the main reason for Toxic's cost is that 0d+1 happens to be exactly 1pt which makes making complicated toxic builds (very common because of all the various diseases, poisons, etc) super easy to math.

Then again, I'm also unsure about IA's costs. They aren't wrong enough for me to want to change them, but I feel some numbers are off.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
delayed onset, no signature

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 11:03 PM.


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