01-10-2015, 03:29 PM | #21 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
Quote:
It's like brain crutches. *shrug* Use them for long enough and you can dance and do Taekwondo in them, and it's easy to forget other people have trouble using them and opening the door at the same time.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table A Wiki for my F2F Group A neglected GURPS blog |
|
01-10-2015, 08:00 PM | #22 |
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
I love random init, and the possibility for simultaneous action
Thats probably my biggest house rule Why is a tick 1/5 a second instead of 1/10? It seems like it should be 1/10th, so an average person that regains 10 per tick gains 100 in 1 second |
01-10-2015, 09:54 PM | #23 | |
Join Date: Feb 2011
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
Quote:
|
|
01-10-2015, 10:00 PM | #24 |
Join Date: Jul 2005
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
That is a good point. Should I just use the median instead, and let ties go to the players?
__________________
Villain's Round Table |
01-12-2015, 08:12 AM | #25 | |||||||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
Quote:
As for not being very social, if everyone is using laptops or tablets you can easily still have things face-to-face with everyone just using their computers as aids. Quote:
Also, thank you for having me play that out. It's revealed quite a few holes I wasn't aware of, which I'll be getting into in a bit. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ETS is mentioned in the first post. It includes Combat Reflexes (+2 Init for determining starting IP) and Lightning Reflexes (+4 Init for same; total is +6), means that even if you somehow fail the Initiative roll you still start at 50 IP, and finally raises the "end of turn IP cap" from 90 IP to 100 IP. ATR no longer exists, because Init is a finer-grained version of it (of note, +10 Init has the same functional effect as a level of ATR, and costs [100]). My previous version had the option of buying Init with an ATR option, causing you to gain IP to two (or more) separate pools at once, being able to pull from either for defenses and getting to act with one anytime it reached 100. This was abandoned for being overly complicated and narratively confusing - someone with ATR 1 should just grab Init 20 or so and be done with it. Quote:
Quote:
I ignored the first post as a joke, but if you'd like to continue this discussion, I'd much prefer if you took it to its own thread. This one is meant to discuss my GURPS Overhaul, not to discuss any and all possible Initiative systems. |
|||||||||
01-12-2015, 09:01 AM | #26 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
Would it be madness to combine this with AP from The Last Gasp? I'm just thinking that if I could blow my AP, IP and defenses for various bonuses on my attack(s), that's 1. really cool, 2. ridiculously overpowered or 3. both.
Also, how does it work with AoA (Double)? Does it halve the IP cost of each attack, or gives you a second one for free? To put it another way, if I want to spend extra IP to get +1 to each attack in an AoA (Double), am I spending 10 or 20? |
01-12-2015, 09:19 AM | #27 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
Quote:
All Out Attack doesn't exist in and of itself anymore - instead, you can give up defense for a number of Ticks to get some extra IP. For AoA (Double), an Init 10 character with a 60 IP weapon could give up defenses for the next 3 Ticks for +30 IP, and burn all of those to drop the cost of attacking to 30 IP, doubling his attack rate. Last edited by Varyon; 01-12-2015 at 09:23 AM. |
|
01-12-2015, 09:38 AM | #28 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
Move: So, as noted above, the example revealed several holes to me. The first that jumped out was movement cost - very few things divide evenly into 50, so that's going to cause a lot of nasty fractional costs. There's also the fact that under my system, Basic Move is a statistic that doesn't actually mean anything in and of itself - you've got to divide it into 50 to get movement costs, multiply it by Init/10 to get overland movement rate, and so forth.
Instead, it's probably more useful to define movement cost as a statistic itself. It starts at 10 IP. Every -1 IP is [5], down to a minimum of 5 IP, for [25] - beyond this, get Enhanced Move (likely with Second Nature +150%). Every +3 IP is [-5], to a maximum of 35 IP for [-25] - beyond this, you basically don't have a combat-relevant movement rate. If you can move really slowly - say around a yard a minute - that's probably good for [-35] or so. Being completely immobile is worth [-50]. Encumbrance throws another monkey wrench in, but that's not too difficult to adjust for. If we say every BL lb is +25% (round final value up) to movement cost, that gives us finer gradations than the current system while matching up decently well with it (note here, however, that reaching BL lb is Light, 2xBL is Medium, and so forth, rather than exceeding these values). So, for a Move 10 character (that is, one who pays 10 IP for every yard), below BL is 10 IP per yard, 1xBL is 13, 2xBL is 15, 3x is 18, 4x is 20, 5x is 23, 6x is 25, 7x is 28, 8x is 30, 9x is 33, 10x is 35. Using the normal (x0.8, x0.6, x0.4, x0.2) values, we'd instead see 10, 10, 12.5, 16.7, 25, 25, 25, 50, 50, 50, 50. So my system is a bit less harsh but is probably comparable. To determine overland movement rate in yards per second, divide 5xInit by movement cost. A Step is how far you can go with 10 IP, round down, to a minimum of 1 yard. To continue avoiding having to deal with fractions, require all characters to have integer Init scores. For this, simply round off Init and give the character some points back - [2] if he lost .25, [5] if he lost .5, [7] if he lost .75. Don't count this toward the Disadvantage Limit. Active Defenses: Next up are some issues with defenses. First off, I forgot to include the fact that characters with TbaM/WM should have halved penalties for decreasing the IP costs. Whether or not Dodge benefits from this is up the GM, although I'd personally go with "No." The other issue is that it's typically best to just stick to your best (for the cost) defense without varying things up at all. With normal GURPS, you suffer from higher and higher penalties as you keep relying on the same defense. IP costs are meant to represent this - as if you want to have a chance at acting you'll need to take a penalty to reduce IP costs - but fail to allow you to slow the loss by varying defenses up. There needs to be a difference in IP costs between sticking to the same defense and switching things up - but should I go for a Carrot, or a Stick? The carrot approach would be thus - if you have already taken an Active Defense since your last turn*, and you take an Active Defense now that is different from what you took previously (to include Parrying with a different weapon), you enjoy a -10 to IP cost, to a minimum of 5 IP. The stick approach is just the opposite - if you have already taken an Active Defense since your last turn, and you take an Active Defense that is the same as the previous one, you suffer a +10 to IP cost. I'm leaning toward Carrot, with a slight modification - it's -5 IP to take a different Active Defense than the previous one, and a further -5 IP to take an Active Defense that you haven't yet taken this turn. Once IP cost reaches 10, these become -2.5 IP each instead (round final cost up). If using Parrying With Two-Handed Weapons (MA123), treat eligible weapons as though they were two different ones for purposes of this rule (thus you could Parry at full cost, then Parry at -10 to IP, then Parry indefinitely for -5 to IP). *A turn here is defined as the amount of time between getting to take Maneuvers. Rate of Fire: The most problematic issue of all, however, is RoF. As seen in my example, Rcl no longer means anything, and full auto fire is probably far too accurate. How to resolve this? The fastest way is to use normal GURPS RoF rules for attack bonuses, number of hits, and so forth, and resolve it all in one Tick. The firing character will fail to regenerate IP for the next few Ticks, depending on how long (up to 1 full second) he opted to fire. This is highly unrealistic (we're combining the fire of up to a full second into 1/5th of a second), but it's easy. Slightly more complicated would be to do the above but actually have the hits occur over the course of a few Ticks. My preferred method, however, is to do away with GURPS RoF rules, which have serious issues of their own, and resolve things a bit... differently. I'm still working that bit out, however. Last edited by Varyon; 01-13-2015 at 07:40 AM. |
01-12-2015, 09:42 AM | #29 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helmouth, The Netherlands
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
I have defined Extra Attack a little different. Instead of an Extra simultaneously attack, it's an attack which very quickly follows the previous attack that round. Players still wanting to display a simultaneously attack get a -2 per Extra Attack on their to hit roll. (1st Attack = 0 modifiers, 2nd Attack at -2, 3rd Attack at -4, etc.).
Players using the successive attacks get their First Attack at Full Basic Speed. If they have 1 Extra Attack, their second Attack is at 1/2 Basic Speed (round down). If they have 2 Extra Attacks, their 2nd Attack is at 2/3 Basic Speed and the 3rd at 1/3 Basic Speed. For the players, this is a one time notation on their character sheet when they buy Extra Attack. |
01-12-2015, 11:03 AM | #30 | ||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: GURPS Overhaul - Initiative, Revised
Quote:
Quote:
In conclusion, I eagerly await your ROF overhaul, because this is tricky. Quote:
Do you know what the term "pick" means in basketball? It means "I stand here, my teammate runs very closely past me, and I'm in the way of the person covering my teammate." Well-executed, there is collision between the picker and the guy on the other team. I have, standing stock still, allowed people to collide with me and they have fallen down. You may suppose that what I did was Waiting and making some sort of shoulder- or hip-based Push Attack, but I'm pretty confident that in a slam that's not wildly imbalanced in size, either or both parties can fall. Quote:
Here's what I propose for the M&A penalty: Thrusting = -2 Thrusting, Defensive Grip = 0 Swing, Full Striking Area = (-4 + Max Reach) Swing, Limited Striking Area = -4 By "full striking area" and "limited striking area," I'm referring to the difference between a sword/staff and an axe/hammer. With a sword, I don't care whether I get you with the tip or the middle, but with an axe, I need the head to hit you in order to get that nice cutting damage. As for the skill cap, I never really liked it: I believe there's a level of skill that could make M&A reliable, and the way to make it make sense is to turn the penalties up as high as necessary. For extra added detail, a "limited striking area" weapon that misses an M&A by a margin of Reach or less has a 50% chance of connecting with the shaft rather than the head, reducing damage by 1, changing it to crushing, and inflicting Hurting Yourself damage on the weapon, using the shaft's (typically wood) DR of 2. Honestly, there's no reason not to implement this rule for all swinging attacks of weapons that have heads: it is how most people break their axes, after all, swinging at a log or whatnot and breaking the shaft against it. It is, however, pretty crunchy. EDIT: on second thought, I can understand why there's a skill cap. If I make the penalty -6 for a swinging an axe in an M&A, then some maniac who's got a prodigious Axe/Mace 22 from a lifetime of chopping down trees and peasants is rolling against 16, but the peasant, who's rather impressed with his Axe/Mace 10 from fooling around while he scythes his grain, has virtually no chance of hitting at skill 4. I think this calls for a soft-cap: apply the penalty as above, and then, if the skill you're rolling against is over 12, apply the penalty a second time or drop skill to 12, whichever is higher. This way, if I adjust the penalty -4 for the axe M&A, the maniac is dropped down to 14, and the peasant is dropped to 6, which is at least redeemable by Telegraphic Attack. To summarize, an unskilled opponent swinging wildly for an M&A should connect often enough to be scary, but it should take really impressive skill to do it reliably. This can't be achieved by a flat penalty and I dislike hardcaps, so I support a softcap. Last edited by McAllister; 01-12-2015 at 11:16 AM. Reason: M&A, man, it's complicated |
||||
Tags |
house rules, overhaul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|