[Basic] Advantage of the Week: Arm ST/Lifting ST/Striking St

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

But yeah, technically they have the 'Default' entry under their names.

...and I only mentioned "defaults", not "skills" in the initial post.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Otaku

...and I only mentioned "defaults", not "skills" in the initial post.

Sorry, somehow I jumped to the idea of it being about skill defaults. Anyway, now we've examined this not-quite-obvious nuance of Lifting ST and ways of getting a subset of its effects in a different way.

[kirbwarrior]

I don't have any links, but I remember Kromm pointing out that any thing that uses ST actually uses Lifting or Striking ST (or rarely HP, such as mass). That makes the most sense to me.

I dislike that Arm ST doesn't give HP. For small levels, I let it increase the damage caps for the limb. For supers and other campaigns with large numbers (double ST or higher), I instead have it act like Damage Reduction; e.g. if your Arm ST is triple ST, you 'take' 1/3 damage to the limb.

It really seems that ST only looks like an attribute; it happens to start at 10, and it's really a meta-trait combined of Lifting ST, Striking ST, and HP.

[Green-Neck]

I often let my players buy a level of arm or lifting ST and then replace it with a level of basic ST when CP's allow. This reduces the frustration of having to save up 10 points.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I dislike that Arm ST doesn't give HP.

It does seem odd; a well muscled arm really should have a bit more mass. This is one of those instances where the more "generic" format (treating it separate) might make more sense presenting alongside the more natural (that the stronger arm would have more HP) instead of replacing it. Is there rules for buying HP via Hit Location? I thought perhaps the DR by Hit Location guidelines would work, but even a 40% discount for only one arm gaining the HP (20% if both arms get it) seems overpriced.

As I wrote up Arm DX last time and Arm ST this time, I once again had to wonder if maybe these two things should be "baked" into the cost of an Extra Arm (and the rules then allow for extrapolating the cost for the default two arms or one arm)... which might significantly alter how things are priced.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Is there rules for buying HP via Hit Location? I thought perhaps the DR by Hit Location guidelines would work, but even a 40% discount for only one arm gaining the HP (20% if both arms get it) seems overpriced.

It wouldn't even make sense unless you are using the Accumulated Injuries optional rule.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It wouldn't even make sense unless you are using the Cumulative Injuries optional rule.

Explain.

Before worrying about what is beneficial to the character (and/or player), I am the type that would prefer limbs have crippling and blow through thresholds appropriate to their seeming bulk/durability. I do generally assume if I am bothering with Hit Location, I'm using Accumulated Wounds on p. B420. I learned to love the predecessor to those rules in 3e and frankly was surprised this was still an optional rule (or again, at least not assumed to be in effect if you're using Hit Locations). I should have mentioned this, though in my defense isn't it kind of obvious if I am bringing the matter of arm HP up to begin with? ^^

Combat lite campaign? I can see sticking with the default rules... though even then it might be better to include as if you're not engaging in combat very often and its over quickly, you've got time for the extra bookkeeping that I consider the only real downside of Accumulated Injuries.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Explain.

I meant "Accumulated Injuries", sorry. If you aren't using that rule then you just have a single pool of HP from which all injuries are subtracted, so having more HP in a location doesn't make any sense.

I learned to love the predecessor to those rules in 3e and frankly was surprised this was still an optional rule (or again, at least not assumed to be in effect if you're using Hit Locations).

I have players that don't understand the difference between damage and injury, or that don't understand what a maneuver is. I've been told here that I shouldn't even care about players being able to understand the rules, anyway. If you could make it work without the player's involvement, then I suppose, but it doesn't seem worth it to me. At some point the level of behind the scenes bookkeeping that I have to do as a GM is just onerous. I have enough problems with tracking Time Use for players.

I should have mentioned this, though in my defense isn't it kind of obvious if I am bringing the matter of arm HP up to begin with? ^^

Consider it a statement of the obvious.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Consider it a statement of the obvious.

Understood... though besides Accumulated Wounds wouldn't it still matter for things like crippling?

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I have players that don't understand the difference between damage and injury, or that don't understand what a maneuver is.

Do they understand the Hit Location rules? Another statement of the obvious I should have included; if the players can't handle the more detailed rules, always go with what they can handle. My personal experience (which clearly is my mileage varying) is players have a harder time getting used to having a homogeneous "Hit Point" total than recognizing injury as injury, though grasping how "points of damage" translates to "injury" often is tricky e.g. there are such things as 0 point injuries.

Compared to designing a character, tracking injuries separately strikes me as relatively simple (assuming the basic game concepts involved are also readily understood). That isn't to say it is the same for everyone else.

[Flyndaran]

It takes the same amount of damage to cripple a leg as an arm. Seems to suggest Gurps granularity swamps any change due to large arms of a not cartoonish size.