Examples of 'Legacy Faults' in GURPS 4e?

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

I've noticed that while some of the traits were rehauled upon conversion (e.g. Psionics, Web/Binding, Acceleration tolerance), some were kept the way they were in the earlier editions (CR, Magery and spells etc.). The question is, traits do you consider being the way they (still) are due to 'legacy's fault', and what should we do about them?

Thanks in advance to all who answer!

[rkbrown419]

As you mention Molokh, Magery and spells are a big one. Most of the changes in 4th edition allow you to customize powers and abilities to work the way you want but the default magic system is not easily customizable and isn't a great model for how magic works in a great deal of fantasy fiction. There is some good stuff to modify the system but there's not enough, it's not gone into in enough depth and half of it is in fantasy instead of magic. Sure you can use Powers to do magic completely different if you want to go to all the work, but there's no middle ground. It needs a middle ground, perhaps rules or guidelines on how to come up with your own modifications to the default system without upsetting play balance.

Another Legacy Fault can also be found in Gurps Magic. The spell Sunbolt (I think that's the one IDHMBWM) uses imp damage just as it did in third edition despite being a bolt of light intense enough to do damage. Why didn't this get changed to burn damage like lasers were?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by rkbrown419

Another Legacy Fault can also be found in Gurps Magic. The spell Sunbolt (I think that's the one IDHMBWM) uses imp damage just as it did in third edition despite being a bolt of light intense enough to do damage. Why didn't this get changed to burn damage like lasers were?

Sunbolt was a biggie. One of my players was very upset that he had to buy sunbolt as Burn IA with a (0.5) armor penetration modifier and double damage dice when converting to Powers. Another spell that was highly suspect is the one which damages with steam. The issue of what type of damage (burn or tox) steam does has its own personal thread.

What else? And what would you do with them?

[Xplo]

Armor weight.

*ducks*

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Xplo

Armor weight.

*ducks*

*turns around*

Are you sure that's a legacy fault, and not a generic historical error?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Are you sure that's a legacy fault, and not a generic historical error?

It's a generic historical error. Armor weights are numbers that can be reality checked, and don't have any direct connection to rules revisions. It happens that some felt that they were wrong in 3e and feel that they are still wrong in 4e. There are sources to support both sides of the debate, but it appears that the ones that agree with GURPS have been discredited in recent times. That 4e didn't catch and deal with this isn't a "legacy fault" but simply a plain old uncorrected error. (And there's no need to duck -- we admit this freely and are willing to take our share of the blame, as long as the champions of armor weight shoulder their share for having not done much to help us solve the problem.)

A "legacy fault" is strictly when some piece of 3e-think survived into 4e despite being inconsistent with 4e-think. Armor weights can't be said to be consistent or inconsistent with either rules set, as neither edition offers a canonical way of determining armor weight from its assumptions about points, TLs, skill levels, or any other game-mechanical entity.

A "legacy error" is an old, unaddressed erratum . . . but that isn't what this thread is about (and in fact there were never any formally reported errata for armor weights that I was told about!).

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Kromm

That 4e didn't catch and deal with this isn't a "legacy fault" but simply a plain old uncorrected error.

A "plain old uncorrected error" would be fixed along with the rest of the errata. I assume armor weights won't be - at the very least, not until Cabaret Chicks On Ice comes out - and I further assume that they were just copied over from 3e. I'd call that a legacy fault.

(And there's no need to duck -- we admit this freely and are willing to take our share of the blame, as long as the champions of armor weight shoulder their share for having not done much to help us solve the problem.)

Well, that issue's been beaten to death, repeatedly.. hence the ducking.

[QUOTE]A "legacy fault" is strictly when some piece of 3e-think survived into 4e despite being inconsistent with 4e-think.[QUOTE]

Well, that's one possible definition, but unless "legacy fault" has some use as jargon that I'm not aware of, it's not the only possible definition.

A "legacy error" is an old, unaddressed erratum . . . but that isn't what this thread is about (and in fact there were never any formally reported errata for armor weights that I was told about!).

As I'm sure you realize, it would be impossible to report the existing values as errata.

[LemmingLord]

I know this is not technically eratta but I like to bring it up when it is even remotely on topic.

Pyromania's point value remains clouded in mystery. How can setting fires "whenever you have the opportunity" be considered only 1/3rd as disadvantageous as making passes at people you find attractive "whenever you have the opportunity." ????

This disparity between pyromania and lecherousness remains from 3rd to 4th edition almost verbatum.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

I know this is not technically eratta but I like to bring it up when it is even remotely on topic.

Pyromania's point value remains clouded in mystery. How can setting fires "whenever you have the opportunity" be considered only 1/3rd as disadvantageous as making passes at people you find attractive "whenever you have the opportunity." ????

This disparity between pyromania and lecherousness remains from 3rd to 4th edition almost verbatum.

simple. "setting fires" != "setting uncontroled fire". the reactions of others you hit on are always uncontrolled.

[Kromm]

Pyromania doesn't make you an arsonist any more than Lecherousness makes you a rapist. Neither trait presupposes that you will go to criminal extents and do horrible things. Both traits assume that you'll merely do disturbing and/or annoying things, the main effects being to waste your time and put you in awkward social situations. In that light, Lecherousness is worth three times as much because tinder and lamp oil don't hit back and/or socially snub you, while people do.

You'll note that disadvantages that are unavoidably criminal are worth more. This is why Kleptomania is worth -15 points. I'd rate Compulsive Arson at -15 points or worse, too . . . but that isn't what Pyromania is.