[Psionic Powers] Do inanimate targets resist Malediction with HT or Will?

[Refplace]

Well Powers has resisted by different attribute at +20% per possible attribute and requires you to pick before rolling.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Well Powers has resisted by different attribute at +20% per possible attribute and requires you to pick before rolling.

Happen to have a page reference for that?

I'm seeing:

Originally Posted by GURPS Powers, pg 105

Resistible
see p. B115
A supernatural disease or magical
poison (like an alchemical elixir)
might allow a Will-based resistance
roll. An ultra-tech threat might be
engineered to require a ST, DX, or IQ
roll. Represent either by adding
Resistible and specifying an attribute
besides HT; e.g., “Resistible, Will-3,
-15%.” Don’t use Based on (Different
Attribute). The GM is the final judge of
what combinations are allowed.

... which tells me not to do that, and so I'm confused.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Well Powers has resisted by different attribute at +20% per possible attribute and requires you to pick before rolling.

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Happen to have a page reference for that?

I'm seeing:
... which tells me not to do that, and so I'm confused.

I was referring to Based on (Different Attribute) p100.
Not sure why the other section says not to do that unless it figures your potion or nanobots cant figure out what to attack so suggests using the penalty instead of substitution.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Either/Or Limitations:
Resistible (HT or Will) (-5), -0.25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (-4), -1%
Resistible (HT or Will) (-3), -2.25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (-2), -5%
Resistible (HT or Will) (-1), -6.25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (-0), -9% ... Either (Resistible (HT) (-0)) Or (Resistible (Will) (-0)) is -9%.
Resistible (HT or Will) (+1), -12.25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+2), -16%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+3), -20.25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+4), -25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+5), -30.25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+6), -36%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+7), -42.25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+8), -49%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+9), -56.25%
Resistible (HT or Will) (+10), -64%

... I would rule that the above is how to calculate "Resisted by the highest of HT or Will" and that "Resisted by the lowest of HT or Will" would require the addition of Selectivity, +10% to the advantage itself.

That makes no sense. Resistible by the Higher of HT or Will is always worse than Resistible by HT (or Will). Thus, the limitation value must be more, not less, than the original.

I'd suggest a flat -20% to the limitation value per attribute after the first.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Langy

That makes no sense. Resistible by the Higher of HT or Will is always worse than Resistible by HT (or Will). Thus, the limitation value must be more, not less, than the original.

Ah, right. I plead fatigue as the cause of my confusion. So, "Resistible by lowest of HT or Will" would use the either/or construct as above and "Resistible by highest of HT or Will" would use ... Hmm. I'd rule it uses:

Resistible (Highest of HT or Will) (-0), -39%
{

Resistible (-0), (-30%; Additional Attribute, +20%; Selectivity, +10%) -39%

}

Round values to taste, as always.

I'd suggest a flat -20% to the limitation value per attribute after the first.

So you'd suggest that Resistible (Highest of HT or Will) (-0) be worth -50%?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

So you'd suggest that Resistible (Highest of HT or Will) (-0) be worth -50%?

Yep. It's a pretty major limitation, though not as bad as 'must resist both HT and Will', which would just double the price (making it -60%). -45%, or multiplication by 1.5, would also work for Resist Highest Of.

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by Langy

Yep. It's a pretty major limitation, though not as bad as 'must resist both HT and Will', which would just double the price (making it -60%). -45%, or multiplication by 1.5, would also work for Resist Highest Of.

Compare with accessibility... the max limitation would be -40% for something that only works 6% or less of the time... or -50% if "only on supers" or equivelent where the power works only on a select group that is much fewer than 1% of the population...

I like accessibility's conservative values... of course I also like multiplicative modifiers so I'm quirky anyway. :)

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by munin

The "HT instead of Will" rule is a limiting source option because it makes it harder to affect inanimate objects with psi. Psi already has more beneficial options than limiting options (as most sources do -- there are at least twice as many possible defined beneficial options as limiting options in GURPS Powers anyway so this happens), so this helps improve the balance of the source. The fact that the rule only applies to certain kind of psi abilities doesn't affect the cost of those abilities.

If the argument "A negative effects that's peculiar to one psionic ability shouldn't be counted as a limitation, because every psionic ability has more positive options than negative ones." were valid, then Nuisance Effect limitations added on some abilities would be meaningless.

[Gurps Fan]

A problem is that a "sentients resist with Will, but non-sentients with HT" doesn't equal "all targets resists with the higher of Will or HT". A Will 1, HT 10 target gets a resistance roll at 10, not 1.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Attribute: N/A is absolutely a house rule (and personally one that I don't like at all), by RAW it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Yes? I certainly wasn't trying to imply that I was giving anything other than my opinion on the way things should be.

I'd be interested in learning why you dislike the concept, although we might want to take it elsewhere.

Pursuant to that end, I started the thread Attribute N/A, Useful concept or not?, where the idea of 'N/A'-level Attributes can be explored without being off-topic.