[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

No-Mana Shutdown [-20] is an exotic physical disadvantage, normally only possessed by magic items built as characters. It means that they shut down completely in no-mana areas, but return to life as soon as magic starts operating again. This appeared in GURPS Thaumatology for 4e, and does not appear in any other publication.

This disadvantage should only be taken in settings where there are no-mana zones. Its pricing is based on Nocturnal, since although no-mana zones are generally rarer than daytime, they are often permanent, and an item could end up trapped in one indefinitely. Items that are damaged by no-mana zones should take Dependency (Mana), and if they stay conscious and only lose special abilities, those abilities should be bought as Mana Sensitive.

At the start of my Infinite Cabal campaign, one of the players wanted to play a magically animated suit of armour, but was talked out of it, once he realised this disadvantage would apply, and that no-mana worlds would exist. Has No-Mana Shutdown been used in your games?

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Shoulda played a magic suit of armour with mana enhancer.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

That would be one to give to an Elf especially if you rule that the Good People treat Mana like Oxygen.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

I generally treat any permanent magical item as having this, such as golems or permanent undead, though I don't think I've explicitly put it on a character sheet since none of them were PCs or important NPCs.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Except that by default magical items shut down in no-mana areas. By GURPS Magic (p. 6): "No Mana: No one can use magic at all. Enchantments and permanent magic effects are suspended and do not function while within a no-mana zone, but resume when taken to an area with mana."

(And yes, I understand the philosophical distinction between "that's just the way it works" for non-character magic items and "my character may shut down" for magic item-characters.)

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

No-Mana Shutdown is essential when modeling magical critters that cease to function when they hit a NMZ.

It's also a good basis for modeling creatures which shut down in the presence, or absence, of some external, ambient force. For example, trolls that turn to stone as long as sunlight shines on them or faeries who temporarily wink out of existence if their existence is denied.

The one big drawback to this disad is that it post-dates GURPS 4E Basic. It's implied for many magical creatures in GURPS Magic, Banestorm, etc., like golems, spirits, or undead, but isn't included in their templates because it wasn't invented when those books were published.

It's fair to ignore the disad for settings where NMZ don't exist, but it needs to be ret-conned into existing templates as necessary to make them truly generic.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

It only really fits templates that shut down without mana but restart as normal if reintroduced to mana. In general, this would be artificial magical constructs with a physical form like a golem or a magical item.

For thaumavores like DF Faerie Folk Dependency (Mana) or something similar is still more appropriate as a general rule.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

GURPS Magic is incorrect. Sanctity based spells and magic items do work in no mana areas as long as the Sanctity is not none and even there there is a big exception: Objects of Power.

Objects of Power come in two types: Minor (creates an area of High Sanctity within a given radius, no matter the true Sanctity of the area) and Major (Very High Sanctity within a given radius, affecting the area so strongly that even after the object has moved on, the location will remain an area of High Sanctity for 1 week per day the object was in the location). The default area is a 5-hex radius.

Objects of Power have a base Power of 25

To use Christianity as an example the Ark of the Covenant would be a Major Object of Power while the Grail and Spear would more likely be Minor Objects of Power. The Grail and Spear would also likely count as Enchantment through Deeds items.

Important Note: Since some deities (like Roma Arcana's Isis) favor mana based magic their Objects of Power may increase Mana rather then Sanctity levels.

There is something akin to this in enchantment called the Mana Pool "quirk" which raises the local mana by one or two steps. Unlike an Object of Power it is limited to Powerstones.

As the GURPSwiki points out:

Important Note: if the item built this way does not have the Mana Sensitive (-10%) limitation then mana and sanctity have no effect on the item (the item is effectively technological in nature or boosts the mana/sanctity level). Even with that limitation the item doesn't have a Power level per say so figuring exactly how that Mana/Sanctity Sensitive limitation works will fall to the GM to figure out. Items with No-Mana Shutdown are clear on how no mana effects them.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

That's because even though they use magic mechanics they aren't magic. They're holy.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

The same applies to the default rules for RPM, magical items only stop working in desecrated areas (which are just as likely to be no mana or no sanctity areas as very high man or very high sanctity areas).

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Except when you look at GURPS Thaumatology which shows how you got from Magery to Power Investiture that argument falls apart as in many respects Sanctity can be viewed as a form of extremely aspected mana

In fact in the RAW there is nothing that prevents Power Investiture (Mana Replaces Sanctity) from existing and it can be argued this is the way Isis of the Roma Arcana setting operates. Heck, for all we know her Objects of Power effect Mana not Sanctity.

Uh no. "For the purpose of standard magic, a desecrated area is considered no mana, most places are normal mana, a place of power (pp. 32-33) that gives +1 to +3 is high mana, and one that gives +4 or +5 is very high mana." (RPM p. 43)

Now there is a variation: "Mana level and Ritual Path energy-gathering modifiers do not have to be conflated! Even if both types of magic exist in a campaign, the GM may rule that their “ambient energies” are totally unlinked; e.g., a grove might be low mana (for standard magic) but a +2 place of power (for Ritual Path magic). This is especially likely if the two represent very different traditions (e.g., holy vs. Hermetic)."

But with the tools Thaumatology provides one can put together something akin to the AD&D1 system where "All magic and cleric spells are similar in that the word sounds, when combined into whatever patterns are applicable, are charged with energy from the Positive or Negative Material Plane. When uttered, these sounds cause the release of this energy, which in turn triggers a set reaction. The release of the energy contained in these words is what causes the spell to be forgotten or the writing to disappear from the surface upon which it is written."

This is a form of Energy Accumulation magic but the local mana and sanctity doesn't matter. Rather functionality is dependent on how good the connections to the planes that power the magic are.

The Slayer's anime has a form of arcane magic where one channels the power of a Dark Lords but there is also Holy and Shamanistic magic as well. Heck, in "Wandering Around? The Runaway Shrine Takes a Trip!" of Slayers a Temple turns out to be a train and the crystal there absorb all magic arcane and divine to power it.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

But if you chose to define magic that way there would be no such thing as a no mana area.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

As said in the Mana Level sidebar in RPM (p. 43), the relationship of mana levels and RPM (and the associated modifiers) are suggestions (meaning that they are not the default rules). While GMs are perfectly free to associate mana levels and RPM, I generally loathe the idea of having every form of magic depending on mana levels nowadays and much prefer having consecration and sanctity being independent of mana. In fact, I tend to make sure that concentration is by tradition and sanctity is by faith, resulting in a complex and sophisticated system of multiple magics.

For example, a witch could practice either standard magic, RPM, or divine magic. If she practices standard magic, she needs Magery (Standard) and worries about mana levels (and her magic items shut down in no mana areas). If she practices RPM, she needs Magery (RPM) and worries about consecrated areas for her tradition (and her magic items shut down in desecrated areas for her tradition). If she practices divine magic, she needs Power Investiture (Faith) and worries about sanctified areas for her faith (and her magic items shut down in no sanctity areas for her faith).

All three types of could exist in the same setting and, in settings with all three, you have a complex and sophisticated relationship between magic and its practitioners. In fact, the diversity of practices could explain why magic is considered nonexistent in a secret magic campaign, as there is low generalizability (what helps or hinders one practitioners may not help or hinder another practitioner). If you have the average laboratory being no mana, desecrated, and no sanctity, the result is that magic does not effectively exist within scientific labs, even if it exists outside of scientific labs.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

T119 only says it's "analagous", does that necessarily mean "based upon" ?

One important distinction:
B146 "you fall paralyzed and comatose"
T119 "would render an item treated as a character “comatose.”"

There is no mention of paralysis happening with NMSD as with Nocturnal.


One way I like to think of this is there being an imaginary disadvantage called "Shut Down -200" and then "Not Shut Down [200]" offsets it.

Thus reduced to a Not Shut Down (Mana-Sensitive -10%) [180]. This is the net loss of 20 points.

B34 pricing also suggests this...
Disadvantages are +1% per -1 value... (lasting MoF minutes)
Incapacitations also last MoF minutes... Unconsciousness is +200%
it stands to reason "permanently unconscious" would be a -200 disadvantage.
Which just so happens to be the cost of buying down IQ 10 to IQ 0.

B34 charges +150% for Incapacitation: Paralysis, implying "Permanently Paralyzed" [-150] as a trait.

The distinction between them I think would be that "Unconscious" would be treated like a mental disadvantage, while "Paralyzed" would be treated like a physical disadvantage.

B429 "can still use advantages or spells that require neither speech nor movement" vs "knocked out".

If you were paralyzed and then possessed, I expect the possessing force would have to deal with a paralyzed body, for example, but an "unconscious mind" may prove no burden at all. Or: one could escape the paralysis of a body with a mind swap into elsewhere, etc.

"Not Paralyzed" [150] with Mana-Sensitive -10% saves 15 points, so that "No-Mana Paralysis" might merely just be a -15 point disadvantage instead of -20.

It would feel like a bit of a point crock to allow both though. Even if it's not as simple as Unconscious being "Paralysis Plus".

M152 Undead Templates, for example.

and of course "Temporary and lasting spells (p. 10) are dispelled when they enter a no-mana zone." which would be analagous to allowing B146 "Permanent Paralysis" enhancement on NMS like on Nocturnal.

M151 "Duration: The zombie remains animated until destroyed." is something we'd have to classify using M10's Duration Types...

If not for a convenient disclaimer I might've assumed it could be merely Lasting ("do not require maintenance, but have a limited effective duration. Typically, they last until some event ends the spell.") with "destruction" being the ending-event...


But we are told:

Zombie is a good example: the magic force that animates the body persists until the
body has been physically destroyed.
A permanent spell, unlike temporary and lasting spells, does not end in a no-mana zone, but it is suspended until the subject leaves the zone

So if we were statting a magic zombie as an ally (say the GM requires you to actually purchase Zombies you create the next time you get bonus points... or doesn't make you purchase them but does want to list them on your character sheet thus raising your point value) it would make sense to lower the values on M152 by 20 by assuming they have No-Mana Shutdown. It simply was not a trait at the time.

There could maybe be a variant "Create Lasting Zombie" (call the classic "Create Permanent Zombie") where any exposure to No Mana makes them unanimatable forever (even if you reintroduce them to mana) perhaps with some kind of skill bonus, energy cost reduction or casting time reduction.

It doesn't complicate using the spell (the energy requirement) since that's not based on point value like Command Spirit / Summon Demon / Control Elemental / Create Golem

Those are the cases where, not only would it affect point value (relative % cost determining ALLY/DEPENDENT cost) but also the energy cost to cast the spell since those are based on point value.

I view that sort of like a "No-Mana Shutdown" creature walking around with "Mana Enhancer". They have a way of mitigating their vulnerability, but if anyone with Mana Dampener comes along, they'll topple over unlike someone without NMSD

T67 has "Sanctity Replaces Mana" as a 0% modifier.
I guess I could see that having similarities to aspected.

In which case there's probably issues with Aspected Mana dealing with stuff like Zombie too.

Any kind of mana adequately anti-necromancy for example might function like No Mana and have zombies paralyzed/unconscious and falling apart, to give an example.

If statting minions in that regard, we would probably need to create variations o the No Mana Shutdown disadvantage in some way...

I wonder if that's as simple as adding "One College" in addition to "Mana Sensitive" on "Not Shutdown"?

This sounds like something GURPS Sorcery should probably deal with for pricing spells, but I don't know if it approached Aspected Mana as a type of "Environmental" limitation or not.

I believe Thaumatology did touch on Aspected Mana Enhancer / Aspected Mana Damper which could help...

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Actually, Objects of Power are more potent than that. Nothing, not even being in the temple of an opposing deity can lessen their "Sanctity Enhancer" ability. For the record an opposing deity's temple is about as "Sanctity Dampener" as you can get.

I was thinking more along the lines of "A region may be especially favorable, or aspected, to one specific kind of magic. A spring might have high mana for healing spells, or a forest glade might have very high mana for plant magic. In these regions, the favored type of magic is made easier and stronger, while disfavored types are discouraged by the very energy a mage works with." (Fantasy p. 43)

Now compare that to GURPS Religion p. 102:

"Very High Sanctity: The area directly surrounding the presence of the deity, a shrine, a temple, a church, or any holy place consecrated to the deity, particular to the religion. These places are the seat of the deity’s power. Spells cast here have no energy cost (unless they can only be cast in a place of Very High Sanctity, in which case normal costs apply). Fatigue spent through the casting of clerical magics is immediately renewed at the end of each turn. This is a No- Sanctity area for all non-allied deities."

So instead of Very High Mana aspected to Healing Spells you have Very High Sanctity to Apollo god of healing.

Also per Roma Arcana, Mana and Sanctity can be linked:
"In general, Roman sorcery derives power from mana (called numen in Latin), but mana consists of spirits. Many spirits are servants of various gods and not available to run errands for sorcerers." (Fantasy p. 207)

So here mana is not an energy per say but a representation of how "free" spirits are to to assist the mage. As the Sanctity of the area goes up the deity has more and more spirits as servants resulting in Mana going down.

Isis (p. 207) is an exception to this because her very sphere is mana based and one of the possible talents she grants her priests is levels of Magery above 0 ("Those with Magery 0 can also acquire levels of Magery"). So here you have, as part of the GURPS canon, a deity that uses Magery (and therefore mana) rather then Power Investiture (and therefore sanctity) for its clerical and follower's spells. It follows that her temples are very high mana rather then very high sanctity. Hekate is another goddess who in all odds would follow this model.

This harkens back to classic GURPS Magic where clerics were simply another form of mage: "A simple clerical advantage is to allow non-mage clerics to use spells of one (or a few) colleges as though they were mages."

And yes with GURPS Religion out this really didn't make sense anymore but there were no changes to reflect this. In fact, if you took the RAW then only spells not requiring magery 1 or higher could be learned by a cleric via this mechanic even though one could still get a bonus (at 5 point per +1 to +3 max) to skill.

Even Voodoo and Spirits shyed away from using Power Investiture and instead effectively ignored it despite how much easier it would have made the authors' lives if they had used it.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Back when I had mana zones, I used Dependency: Mana (Constant) for magic creatures and No-Mana Shutdown for magical creations; golems, artifacts, zombies, etc. They're close enough in cost that either one works fine with minimal change to things.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

OOP come exclusively from 3e's GURPS Religion right?

How do we know R103 does not apply here?

Areas of High or Very High Sanctity for one deity will usually lower the Sanctity level of any other deity in that area by 1, unless their powers are allied.

I don't see anything on R107 saying standard deductions don't apply.

The only special protection I'm aware of is R110's note that "Objects of Power may never be desecrated."

This is protection against the 10% chance to destroy, and potentially needing to be "repurified" with Concentrate to work.

It means you can't take away it's ability to create High Sanctity, sure...

But that doesn't necessarily mean the EFFECT of high sanctity can't be countermanded.

For example, you mention the Major Object of Power... one thing it does is this:

"even after the object has moved on, the location will remain an area of High Sanctity for 1 week per day the object was in the location."

I very much believe Desecrate can end that early, because that's just lowering the area effect, not desecrating the item itself which made that effect and is long gone.

The problem is that since there's an "Always On" effect in real-space, Consecrate doesn't seem like it can do much by targeting the area instead of the item: lowering it just gets over-wrote again immediately by the item.

Here's the trick though: you don't use Desecrate, you use CONSECRATE to counteract OOP.

If you create a High Sanctity area using Concecrate then the -1 to OOP should apply, so Minor only creates Normal instead of High, and Major only creates High instead of Normal.

That's just for sanctity in respect to ONE deity. If you have TWO opposed deities then it should go down two steps. Those opposers should be allied to one another though, or they would interfere with each other's opposition of the 3rd party OOP.

Of course one problem here is that the OOP's High Sanctity would also -1 the High Sanctity of the Concecrate, which would bring BOTH down to normal.

I think there's a "base Sanctity" and an "effective Sanctity" and the only way we can avoid recursion is to apply the -1 to effectives based on the Base ONLY.

If we determine the -1 based on effective it leads to a catch 22 situation where two High Sanctities clash, inflict a mutual -1, and that -1 lowers them below High, losing the ability to inflict the -1.

I'm wondering if that's more like "just assume it's No Sanctity by default because they probably Desecrated it in respect to any other deities whose sanctity they detected as part of setting up the temple" ?

SPECIAL DAY OF WEAKNESS + MINUS ONE TO EFFECTIVE SANCTITY FROM HIGH NON-ALLY seems like the true Sanctity Dampener effects.

Although reading R102 confuses me...

This is a No-Sanctity area for all non-allied deities.

So which is it, VHS lowers non-allied deity's sanctity by 1, or lowers it to none?

R103 also has "High Holy Days" which can boost sanctity which cost double the amount of the usual "Days of Strength" rules.

"Days of Weakness" works similar but I think they forgot to list 2/day for the "special day of weakness" since SDOW is worse than usual DOW rules.

R107 is where I see OOP rules and it mentions "create an area of High or Very High Sanctity" which sounds like an override (eg minor has no benefit in already-high regions, doesn't boost it to VH, unlike mana enhancer)

R108 seems to have text which might be what you're basing this on?

an area of High Sanctity within a given radius, no matter the true Sanctity of the area

Funny aspect about that: shouldn't that actually legally reduce a Very High Sanctity area to merely High Sanctity? ;)

"no matter the true" does sound like it would over-ride "No Sanctity" with "High Sanctity", but I don't see anything to indicate this High Sanctity area being immune to the considerations on R103 (H or VH by another deity inflicts -1 if unallied)

How I figure that makes sense is let's say we have 3 unallied deities. All have a condition which creates "Very High" sanctity simultaneously. End result: VH>H>N = operates as normal sanctity for all.

If there were 4: all would operate as Low. If there were 5: all would operate as No Sanctity.

R102 seems irreconcileable though unless we consider it just a "standard operating procedure" note. Clearly 2 deities can battle over sanctity of a given location and "Very High Means None" doesn't really help resolve that conflict.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

This brings up a decent way to make a more generic Shutdown Disadvantage. If Thaumatology assumes Mana is Common (like Magic does), this indicates a Very Common "shutdown dependency" would be worth [-10], a Common one is [-20], an Occasional one is [-40], and a Rare one is [-60]. If instead it assumes Mana is Very Common (like Fantasy does), this becomes [-20], [-40], [-80], and [-120], respectively. Personally, I feel the former seems more appropriate, meaning in a setting where Mana is Very Common, No-Mana Shutdown may be more appropriately priced at [-10].

Of course, I'd be inclined to shift things a wee bit to look nicer - Very Common is [-10], Common is [-20], Occasional is [-30], and Rare is [-50].

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

I had priced things assuming mana was Very Common for Dependency and even then that feels like a free 25pts. It's like "Dependency: Oxygen"... which makes me think that replacing a need for air with a need for mana seems like a fine feature (but I'd have to think further on what else that effects)

I think NMS carries a further weight; There are spells, traits, and items that can affect mana and thus 'turn you off' without warning. We could use your first set, setting Mana to Very Common (-10) but adding another -10 for "can be manipulated without relation to you" since someone can Mana Dampener near you and there's nothing you can do if you don't know they have it.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Not exactly. You ean "build" them via the Magic Items as advantages/characters as seen Thaumatology p. 120

Unless you actually put in the No-Mana Shutdown [-20] disadvantage (as for the Harp example) or Mana Sensitive (-10%) limitation mana and sanctity have no effect on the item (the item is effectively technological in nature or boosts the mana/sanctity level)

"Objects of Power are Holy Objects with a special difference: they create an area of High or Very High Sanctity about themselves, with all attendant benefits for the cleric. They represent the presence of the deity itself. They are exceedingly rare." R107

"Very High Sanctity: The area directly surrounding the presence of the deity, a shrine, a temple, a church, or any holy place consecrated to the deity, particular to the religion." R102

So basically an Object of Power (Minor) is akin to a poor man's version of a mobile temple and an Object of Power (Major) is effectively a mobile temple.

Now when you take Object of Power (Major) into a opposing deity's temple (say the Ark to a temple of Zeus or any other pagan deity) the deity with the larger sphere wins the contest (in this example it would be YHWH). Of course doing something this crazy would likely result in you now having a new enemy and Terminally Ill (Darwin Award) :-)

Things get really squirrely if deities can "split" due to schisming. Something like this happed to DC's Uncle Sam who during the Civil War was broken into Billy Yank and Johnny Reb. More over thanks to the two issue mini Uncle Sam we know Columbia is a separate being and Spectre's comic showed the same was true for Brother Johnathan. So during the Civil War in the DCU you had Columbia, Brother Johnathan, Billy Yank, and Johnny Reb all running around with different degrees of power.

In fact it was due to this issue of belief that the Greek Gods got split into the Greek and Roman gods in the DCU as outline in the Wars of the Gods saga and they merged though exactly how that happened was kind of "ok how?"

Dragon #101's (Sept 1985) "For King and Country" touched on this (using Christianity again):

"It is possible, in other words, for paladins to fight one another, inflict damage on one another with their holy swords, and gain bonuses in their saving throws against one another’s spells. The long-debated question of whether there should be an antipaladin class is quickly resolved; there is no need for such a class when paladins can logically oppose one another in any case. To each paladin, the other would seem to be an anti-paladin, a fanatical pagan intent on the desecration of all that is right and pure."

This true even if the Paladins are each from one of the many sects described in Against Heresies (c 180 CE). The model in that article is akin to R38: "The divine being requires the worship and belief of followers in order to survive. It may be that the deity is simply a potential force, existing without power until fueled by the fervent belief of others. Or it might be that belief actually creates the divine force."

Of course this either results a whole bucket of Christian "One true gods" running around or that one deity having a real bad case of Dissociative identity disorder.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

"Needs Mana instead of Oxygen" could be written as Doesn't Breathe + Sealed + Dependency (Mana, Constant, Very Common) for 0 points total.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

I haven't played with the disadvantage myself, but it could also be useful on an alternate form or summoned ally, I think.

Consider a werewolf who charges into a mana-free area only to find himself reverted to a naked, sad human.

Similarly, a summoned ally could have this disadvantage even if it's a living thing, being banished back from whence it came. The paladin could find himself mount-less in a magic-free or desecrated place. Or the wizard's imp familiar might poof back to the nine hells or wherever once the magical link is severed.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Reading this, I've realized that there is/was a small gap for the "Off, not dead" state. I was just reminded of all the clockwork being that shut down if not regularly wound up, or the Tinman from Oz and his rust issues. A generic disadvantage might be called for here.

Shutdown State [-20]
You instantly shutdown, but do not die, in response to the presence or absence of certain conditions. Multiply based on the frequency. Very Common (x2) such as rain, Common (x1.5), Occasional, such as No Mana Zones, (x1), Rare (x0.5)

Slow Shutdown (-50%) You have HT seconds before you shutdown, giving you time to attempt and escape or perform final actions.

Power Source (+0%) You have a power source that if not replenished results in immediate shutdown. Good for clockwork creatures that need frequent winding. By default this is equivalent to three meals per day. Use Reduced Consumption or Increased Consumption to change the frequency.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

I was, indeed, referring specifically to magic items using the rules in GURPS Magic, not to holy items. One of my current PCs has a minor holy sword. Its "spells" are described using GURPS Magic, but its power comes not from mana, but from the gods (that is, its spells can be affected by the sanctity of an area, not by mana level).

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Holy Relics in Fantasy are kinda interesting, the "Power" enchantment can apparently fuel a mage's spells (not just item's) for double cost (1000) and ther is a 750 energy tier for fueling multiple spells from item instead of 1.

Which has some relevance to previous discussions I've seen about whether "Power" needs to be bought multiple times for multi-spell enchanted objects...

Well I guess you could have:

Mana Enhancer (switchable, reflexive)
or:
Affliction (Melee, Aura, Area Effect, Reflexive, Negated Advantage: Mana Damper)

Reflexive neutralize perhaps too?

Kinda wonder if DR w/ reflection (per following power parry rules and GURPS Sorcery) should work against other "ranged" enhanced attacks beyond the basic 3 afflict/bind/IA

I mean the unique rules for creating sanctity. T120 is only about objects as characters, so you'd still need an advantage to reflect OOP creating Sanctity fields. Did we ever get a bit about a variant of Mana Enhancer existing for that?

But which advantage lets them do that?

Right, so if a temple's base power results in lower effective power due to interference I would expect OOP base power to similarly output lower effective power due to interference.

Where can I find the explanation of sphere v sphere? Not sure how this would play out.

It does feel like more ought to matter (like respective deity power) than just the number of them, in sanc v sanc butting.

Could have one deity with cohesive identity who just wants the struggle to enrich everyone's DX

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

You can build one. :-) Though to get it to work you have to remove the 2 level limit and then figure out what the enhancement 'not effected by local mana' is costwise.

Divine Ritual Magic T71 and related material (The Temple of Hephaestus) goes into the mechanics on this but there are scattered around the book making it somewhat a PITA to put the pieces together. But this is effective what is in Religion.

"Any blacksmith’s forge or metalworker’s workshop can be temporarily sanctified in the normal way by an ordinary or high priest (but not by anyone else), as can any small room with stone or brick walls and a fire burning in the center."

"Higher sanctity levels are usually associated with consecrated ground or space. Since consecration is something that mortal priests can perform, mortals can – with effort – modify sanctity. (...) Note that these rules apply to mortals. The gods themselves can change sanctity with considerably less effort. Simply standing somewhere for a moment usually suffices!" T69

The methods provided on T68 are effectively a variation of what is in R103's side box.

This is effectively impossible under the "everything" option under "What Deities Get From Their Followers" More over the Christian god depending on the denomination/bible passage is Benevolent, Malevolent (Job's test), Meddlesome, Indifferent, Observant, Oblivious, Forthright, Mysterious, and/or Coda. They all can't be correct unless something akin to what is true of Hindu gods is going on.

Think how gods work in Pratchett Discworld series and that gives you the core mechanic of this. In fact, “It is said that men may not be the dreams of the god, but rather that the gods are the dreams of men.” - Hindu religion summation by Carl Sagan

In fact, Hinduism has a kind of nested Russian doll aspect where each step down is a more limited aspect. In the example given you have Shakti->Parvati->Durga->Kali. "They are usually depicted as distinct goddesses but they are also the same entity taking on more specific forms"

For the variation aspect there is a piece on Aphrodite with a variant (Aphrodite Areia) that wasn't the lover of the god of war because she was the goddess of war! This varient was worshiped in Sparta (of course).

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

That actually comes out to 10pts which lines up with my gut instinct of how much this 'feature' would cost (-25 for Dependency, 20 for Doesn't Breathe, 15 for Sealed).

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

I'm not sure why, but I always think Sealed is just 5 points even if I've just looked it up.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Considering how well DR1 can stop contact agents I get that. One neat thing that lines up is Doesn't Breathe with NMS. For 0 points you don't have to worry about breathing but pass out instantly when there is no mana.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

DR 1 does not stop Contact Agent or Blood Agent that possess Cone or Area Effect though, as they ignore all DR. It also protects against any corrosive attack that does requires physical contact to work, like an acid.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

You would think Contact Agent wouldn't be impaired by DR (tough skin -40%) but unless that exception is hidden away somewhere it seams it does.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

The Tough Skin limitation itself (p.47 of Basic) says "Any effect that requires [...] skin contact [...] affects you if the attack carrying it penetrates the DR of any armor you are wearing", so it looks to me as if any Contact Agent agent ("Your attack must touch bare skin or porous clothing to have any effect at all", p.111) should bypass it as expected.

EDIT: Contact agent says "DR always stops it", but that shouldn't be taken too fanatically- it needs to be relevant Damage Resistance. A fire-proof being's DR (Only versus heat, -x%) wouldn't stop a (non-fire-based) contact agent attack, and Tough Skin is essentially DR (not versus scratches and contact effects).

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Tough Skin explicitly does not protect against any effect that requires a scratch (for example, a Blood Agent) or skin contact (for example, a Contact Agent) (Basic, p. 47). It is one of the many reasons why Tough Skin provides a -40% discount.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

B49 prohibits Sealed for Oxygen Absorption (and probably also for combustion due to 'as Absorption') but not for gills, storage, or the non-limited Doesn't Breathe.

B82 mentions Sealed protects your "exterior breathing apparatus" giving example of nose or snorkel...

I really have no clue how to work that though...

How can a layer be gas-impermeable yet you can breathe through your nose or gills?

TBH the only way Sealed makes sense to me is with Doesn't Breathe, or in using a limited form of DB w/ Sealed being Switchable or "Bane: Nose"

Sounds like what B55 Filter Lungs is for. The note about not needing it if you have DB might just be for the non-limited form?

Forcefield DR being the recipient of Sealed is one thing I'm able to envision keeping out gas/liquids. P12 mentions they're often combined...

If you have DR with AE then that should probably also be an improvised oxygen supply so long as you put it up before the water/gas seeps in.

DR w/ AE can be pushed through using thrust-stepping though so maybe you'd need pressure support to avoid having the field collapse from external pressure in deep sea or internal pressure in space.

B108 Respiratory Agent +50% only allows Doesn't Breathe or Filter Lungs to protect... no mention of Sealed... B111 Contact Agent +150% only allows Sealed to protect... B110 Blood Agent +100% seems to work somewhere in between...

BA100 like CA150 is also stopped by Sealed, but has the added countermeasure alternative of "1 of 2 and 1 of 2" (DB/FL+NM+PV)

I'm thinking the reason Blood Agent is more valuable is because if the mouth/nose/lungs are protected (they're a mucous membrane) then it just hits through the eyes unless they're protected too.

B109 Sense-Based is worth the same as Blood Agent +150% though... I guess that's the part I don't get.

I guess maybe because Nictitating MEmbrane or Protected Vision are only partial defenses (bonus to resist, need multiple levels for higher chances) against Sense-Based whereas they are absolute defenses (even at 1 level) against Blood Agent.

This is also one way Nictitating Membrane is better than DR (forcefield) too, since while the latter gives DR to protect eyes, it doesn't give a bonus against vision-based or immunity to Blood Agent.

B47

Any effect that requires a scratch (e.g., poison) or skin contact (e.g., electrical shock or Pressure Points skill) affects you if the attack carrying it penetrates the DR of any armor you are wearing – even if it does exactly 0 damage! Your natural DR, being living tissue, provides no protection at all against such attacks.

Pretty sure Contact Agent is NOT impaired by it.

The weird part about Tough Skin's description is twofold:

1) forgetting Contact Agent also applies to "porous clothing" on B111

2) the idea of treating a "scratch" (I would assume this refers to Blood Agent?) and "skin contact" as the same thing...

B110 requires an "open wound" for Blood Agent unless you target a mucous membrane after all.

We need some kind of threshold for that. I always assumed 1 HP but that's a major wound for 1 HP creatures so I'd be fine with a lower threshold (perhaps to 1 decimal place if using higher-res dmg) of something like 0.1 damage, and make that the new minimum Basic Damage of non-crushing attacks.

If doing that I would suggest repricing innate attack, rather than 0.25 for 1 or -0.3 per -1, could just do 1/10 price per 1d/10. Since that's 20% cost for 1d/5 (average 3.5 / 5 = 0.7) that seems better than "take 1".

Subbing 3 for 1d would be fine if someone wanted fixed damage. 3/4 = 0.75 dmg for 25% cost. You'd need 34% price for 1 dmg.

I don't know how to reflect how some Burning Attacks ought to 'cauterize' (ie any blood it draws is sealed off) though. That should somehow be a thing.

We'd also need some kind of rule for the SM of wounds created by % of HP loss, like say if you drew blood using a knife and then tried to hit that later with a non-AE blood agent.

Obviously there should be some way to destroy "sealed" too...

Do we have text for unmodified sealed doing that? I thought you needed Acid-Resistant enhancement on Sealed to have it function like Corrosive Attack (No DR REduction -10%)

Another issue is shrinkers, P76 "unsealed armor" note. Grapples can enter an orifice (ear/nose/ETC.) without it. Could be RPed in more interesting ways, obviously there should be different amounts of "crawling time" needed to find the chinks in DR with different degrees of coverage, at least slowing down Atoms/Wasps even if they're no absolute defense. Should be easier to get through chainmail than around plate, for example.

We should note drawbacks too of course...
P106's example of Sense-Based reversed mentions you can't smell external stuff from within a sealed suit. Which does make me wonder how you can actually breathe... seems like Sealed really ought to "prevent you from breathing stuff outside your bubble" but maybe allow AE to be bought on Sealed (much like DR) to seal in a larger bubble of air, to allow you to breathe/smell a wider volume.

P108 mentions buying Force Field for Sealed which is a distinction I'm trying to get my head around TBH. I guess because it protects your clothing from contact acids and not just your skin?

Force Field normally adds "eye protection" to DR, so would that imply FFless Sealed to be "sealed skin" but not "sealed lungs" ? If it isn't introducing this benefit then why should it cost as much as it does for DR?

I thought I remembered a way to 'eat away' at sealed but I can't find it in Basic/Powers/Weird... this ring a bell?

I'm thinking maybe pg 5 of Shell-Tech 'Acid Resistant' not sure if this book introduced the rules it would be an exception to...

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

It's true, which is why Sealed is 15 instead of 5.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

I finally found that weird bit I remembered.

B429 under Hazardous Atmosphere.

"Those with the Sealed advantage are safe; those in sealed suits might be safe, but some gases eat away at seals."

I could've sworn I saw a Corrosive Attack enhancement for eating away at seals (maybe just vs gadgets?) that complimented this but still can't find it...

Ht178 has non-sealed DR protect against Flamethrowers at 1/5 while Sealed DR works 100%, which I guess is something like Armor Divisor with a limitation where AD doesn't affect sealed DR. though if it was ablative I guess it would go down normally.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Erosive, Power Ups 4 page 18.

Re: [Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: No-Mana Shutdown
 

Thanks! NOT GOING CRAZY. That's a cool one. Now that I know the name, it's also on P108 too.

That must be what corrosive atmospheres have.... apparently can be added to ANY attack though, not just Corrosion Attack.

I guess this would work against Sealed w/ Gadget Limitation and gradually whittle HT of the gadget (of course... you don't actually PAY for HT of gadgets, that seems like a problem)

That's along the lines of "I wear my gadget but my gadget itself is not sealed"? If we viewed gadgets as characters with a payload (extending sealed to their contents, as a vehicle would) then the vehicle itself shouldn't have Sealed since then it would somehow be "requires HT roll" with failures depleting HT instead of FP...

I think one way to represent "corrosion destroys sealed" would be...

PU8p5 "Only while using (ability): This ability turns on only when a
different ability is in use."

That -10% limitation on Sealed would mean you require DR to be up for it to work, and it seems reasonable that depleting the DR to 0 should deactivate Sealed.

"Requires HT roll" on a vehicle/armor ally lacking FP would probably float FP costs to HT per "Extra Effort Costs HT" from Zombies 67.

That or if the FP-cost element of Requires (Attribute) Roll could be shifted directly to an HP cost.