[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Vulnerability and Weakness

[johndallman]

Vulnerability [-10 to -80] is an exotic physical disadvantage. You take additional damage from a particular kind of attack, expressed as a multiplier to damage that penetrates DR. This disadvantage appeared during the 3e period, but was changed for 4e.

Weakness [-2 to -60] is likewise an exotic physical disadvantage. You take damage merely from being in the presence of some substance or condition that isn’t normally harmful. This is direct HP damage, not affected by DR. This disadvantage appeared in GURPS Supers for 3e.

Vulnerability is used for classic cases like werewolves and silver, but is quite generalised. It needs to be distinguished from Susceptible, which is about HT rolls, not damage, and can provide a way to bypass Supernatural Durability. Rather painfully, the multiplied damage for this disadvantage is then subject to wounding multipliers: werewolves hit in the vitals with silver take x12 (x3 vitals, x4 silver) damage after DR, and tend to abruptly stop arguing. The disadvantage value depends on the damage multiplier, and the rarity of the attack form, using a Vulnerability-specific table. You aren’t allowed more than two types of Vulnerability without GM permission, and you cannot be Vulnerable to something you have a specific defence against. There is a special -50% limitation that makes you Vulnerable to fatigue point loss, rather than injuries, which might work well with Unfit.

Weakness is for things like vampires in sunlight. The disadvantage value depends on the rate at which you take damage, from 1d/minute to 1d/30 minutes, modified by the rarity of the substance. Like Vulnerability, you can’t have more than two Weaknesses without GM approval, and there’s a ‑50% limitation for taking FP instead of HP. There’s another special limitation for sensitivity to intensity: there are barriers that can halve the damage, but especially intense sources double it.

Both of these disadvantages show up on morphology meta-traits, as well as racial templates. For example, elemental “Body of” traits often have them with respect to their opposite element. Supernatural creatures, such as Discworld elves, faerie, trolls, vampires, werewolves, etc., suffer from these disadvantages in many settings. Mundane creatures can still have them, for things like water of the wrong salinity, or acquire them after spending a long time in a strange environment, such as zero-G. DF monsters quite often have one of these disadvantages, although I’m not going to list them, and High-Tech, Pulp Guns and Loadouts: Monster Hunters have ammunition for exploiting them. Horror and Worlds of Horror have more monsters and variants, and Space has Vulnerabilities and Weaknesses for aliens. Thaumatology discusses the trade-offs between Magic Susceptibility and Vulnerability, since really specialised wizards may have embraced magic too thoroughly to resist it normally. Zombies often have these disadvantages, frequently severely, and Zombies has new enhancements and limitations for Weakness.

Some interesting variants for these disadvantages were posted back in 2015, and it seemed worth linking to them. I’ve never used these disadvantages as a GM, since I’ve never run traditional horror or dungeon-crawling under GURPS, and they feel a bit four-colour-superhero for my taste in PCs. The sole werewolf we fought in the occult WWII game was dangerous enough to make a silver knife and silver bullets fixtures on my equipment list: all wolves are werewolves in that setting, but few want anything to do with human concerns.

Have these disadvantages enlivened your games?

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

In the original Dracula (by Bram Stoker), the eponymous Count did not take damage from sunlight; although he did not seem fond of it.

I think the modern tradition of "vulnerability" to a wooden stake through the heart ("Doesn't that kill anyone?") would more properly be represented as a limited form of Unkillable 1. The same for Night of the Living Dead zombies and destroying the brain.

Likewise, in the tradition of a silver bullet to kill a werewolf, as I understand it, it's that only a silver bullet (or, presumably, a silver weapon in general; but why would you melee a werewolf if you didn't have to?) can kill a werewolf.

Much of what tends to get Vulnerability or Weakness could more properly be phrased as other things, I think.

[AlexanderHowl]

It is possible for a character to suffer from Bane and a Vulnerability and/or Weakness against the same thing though. A mummy could have DR 4 (Bane, Fire, -10%; Tough Skin, -40%) [10], Immunity (Metabolic Hazards) [30], Injury Tolerance (Unliving) [20], Regeneration (Fast; Bane, Fire, -50%) [25], Regrowth (Bane, Fire, Prevents Regrowth, -50%) [20], Unkillable 2 (Achilles Heel, Fire, -50%) [50], Unaging [15], and Vulnerability (Fire x 4) [-60]. With the exception of fire damage, the mummy would recover from even the most grievous of injuries within just a couple of hours, allowing them to return to plague their enemies every night.

[kirbwarrior]

I used Vulnerability a lot but probably never in the last two years. Weakness not so much and I can't remember the last time I did. I've come to dislike the 'superman problem' where you are more defined by your weaknesses than your strengths.

[ericthered]

I’ve never used these disadvantages as a GM, since I’ve never run traditional horror or dungeon-crawling under GURPS, and they feel a bit four-colour-superhero for my taste in PCs. The sole werewolf we fought in the occult WWII game was dangerous enough to make a silver knife and silver bullets fixtures on my equipment list: all wolves are werewolves in that setting, but few want anything to do with human concerns.

Have these disadvantages enlivened your games?

Monster Hunters is my default game for getting a quick group together, and Monster Hunters really leans into these traits, so I've used them a lot, even in their most basic forms. I had one player be an "Eastern Vampire" with a weakness to vinegar, which was interesting. I often make custom monsters for that game, and including new vulnerabilities and weaknesses for them. Or reusing old and common ones.

I use vulnerability quite a bit in more custom settings as well. I have a house-rule where a x1.5 damage modifier costs half of what a x2 costs. I've used that on crushing damage for liches and skeletons, and on some flying foes as well. I've built an alien race that strongly resembles an alien anthill and given them a vulnerability to poisonous gas. I've made a ritual that supernaturally strengthen warriors but give them a magical vulnerability to weapons based on copper.

I don't use weakness as much. Damage is just kind of boring, but...

Originally Posted by johndallman

Some interesting variants for these disadvantages were posted back in 2015, and it seemed worth linking to them.

There was another house rule we built back in 2014. I prefer that build, because the 2015 house rule is based on nocturnal, which is probably under-priced.

Either way, with one of those two rules, you can represent supernatural attacks that stun or place in permanent pain, which is useful. I can't say I actually use it much though.

Of course, most of the time, you don't actually need to figure out the point cost though, because these traits get stuck on monsters, not characters or even allies or enemies. It is important to be able to stat them as characters, but most of the time its as simple as declaring it so (and writing it down).

As a special case, I've used weakness to represent items whose destruction result in the death of the individual. I got the idea from Ravens 'n Pennies, and I seem to point it out to someone every year or so.

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

Much of what tends to get Vulnerability or Weakness could more properly be phrased as other things, I think.

In GURPS, its important to know what a trait means independently of its English name. You're very much correct. Most of the time a "weakness" for a monster should be a limitation on a powerful defensive trait, rather than a substance that causes damage or a even an attack that does extra damage. Of course, including weakness or vulnerability in addition to the defensive limitation is often appropriate.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by ericthered

In GURPS, its important to know what a trait means independently of its English name. You're very much correct. Most of the time a "weakness" for a monster should be a limitation on a powerful defensive trait, rather than a substance that causes damage or a even an attack that does extra damage. Of course, including weakness or vulnerability in addition to the defensive limitation is often appropriate.

Very true. For example, in fiction it is often much easier to pierce a vampire's ribcage with a stake than it "should" be; this is both bypassing some sort of defence, and doing structural damage more easily than "would be expected".

Except (for instance) in Bram Stoker's Dracula, where they brought a mallet.

[RogerBW]

I think this shows a small flaw in GURPS: here's this disad for "normally-safe things hurt you", and this totally separate disad for "normally-dangerous things hurt you more". If it were computer code, I'd wonder why they hadn't been combined into a single subroutine.

Like John I don't often use this. It is coming up quite a bit in the current Monster Hunters game, though in the current scenario the climactic fight has arrived rather before the PCs expected it so they haven't done any research…

[johndallman]

There will be a short intermission in Disadvantage of the Week, because I'm about to have eye surgery - as in, about two hours from now.

[Anders]

Good luck!

Will you be doing Spell of the week next?

[coronatiger]

Originally Posted by Anders

Good luck!

Will you be doing Spell of the week next?

That project would take years, decades probably, especially if you include the spells from Magic and its "children" like Least Spells. But I am a big fan of the basic magic system, so I'd be happy to see this project realized.