Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1479906)

While the effect of a Blocking spell is equivalent to an active defense, the roll involved isn't an active defense roll. Just to start with, the roll is against a full skill, not (skill/2)+3. On the downside, Blocking spells are affected by the penalties for low mana, shock (DX/IQ penalty for injury last turn), spells "on," and a lot of other things that don't affect active defense rolls, and do not get +1 for Combat Reflexes. In addition, they always cost FP (even high skill can't change this), automatically interrupt long castings (no Will-3 roll allowed), and can't be used repeatedly in a turn (even at a penalty). As they have their own, fairly extensive drawbacks like this, making them subject to the standard run of active-defense penalties as well would be excessive. Thus, Blocking spells aren't affected by standard active defense penalties.

Originally Posted by Kromm

No. Time is fixed by skill level. Skills like that don't allow changes in time spent unless they specifically say so and give rules, as with Power Blow.

It's a reminder that these things have to do with Will, not an exclusive list.

No. Or to be precise, it was discussed and rejected . . . a "weasel out of my disads" skill was deemed a very bad idea indeed.

Yes.

You can have one effect "on" at a time, yes. You cannot make N rolls for N effects.

Sure.

Yes.

Yes, that's why the one case is called out as special.

I always let it work as HPT with an activation roll and time limit, so that seems fair.

Yes. This is a roll by the player.

Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1588694)

You can get one of the effects, once. You cannot get more than one effect at a time, or stack instances of the same effect. That is what "one of the following" means.

Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1553972)

The cited rule means that attacks that cause FP are subject to no special wounding effects for hit location. You can pick any body part on your target and attack it at the usual penalty for hit location. If the target has FP, then the attack reduces those FP by the amount rolled minus any DR on the body part, unless the attack happens to ignore DR (not an intrinsic property of attacks with the fat damage type). The only limit on how many FP can be caused is the target's usual floor of -FP.

In much shorter terms, it's mostly a statement that you can't get bonus FP by aiming at the skull or vitals, and don't inflict fewer FP just because you hit a hand or an arm.

Originally Posted by Kromm

The answer is (b). It's just that Style Perks that aren't Combat Perks happen to appear in some shooting styles.

Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1063800)

The following results in combat are obvious without any dice rolling:

• Knocked back.
• Knocked down.
• Stunned; the heart attack mortal condition; and the agony, choking, daze, and ecstasy incapacitating conditions.
• Crippled.
• Hallucinating incapacitating condition.
• Retching incapacitating condition.
• Seizure incapacitating condition.
• Dead; unconscious; the coma mortal condition; and the paralysis, sleep, and unconsciousness incapacitating conditions.

However, it would require a Concentrate maneuver and a skill roll to distinguish between two conditions on the same line above in a fight (stunned vs. daze, dead vs. merely unconscious, etc.). Ditto to distinguish between two causes of the same condition (knocked down by failed HT roll vs. knocked down by failed DX roll, mental vs. physical stun, etc.). And ditto to identify shock (the penalty due to injury), irritating conditions (coughing/sneezing, drowsy, drunk, euphoria, nauseated, pain, or tipsy), or wounds (missing 1 HP vs. missing 4 HP, etc.).

I would allow several skills to work here. Diagnosis is obvious, but other possibilities might be Body Language (to notice shock, tell types of stun apart, etc.), Physiology, Streetwise (to spot drunk, euphoria, etc., and to distinguish ecstasy/daze due to drugs from combat stun), and anything else the player convinced me made sense. For instance, I'd let a boxer make a Per-based Boxing roll to assess the results of his beating. The important part is the turn spent scrutinizing the target, not the skill. I'd probably give a bonus equal in size to the largest relevant penalty to notice irritating conditions and shock, too; drunk, with -4 to self-control rolls, would be +4 to spot, compared to +2 for tipsy. Likewise, -4 in shock would give +4.

However, the simple answer about stun is, "Yes, it's obvious when somebody is stunned." In general, if somebody wants to fake still being stunned (or any other status above), the onus is on him to win a Quick Contest vs. observers' IQ or relevant skill.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1660763)

We have never published such a list, but behind the scenes, we use this one:

1. Latin American (Mexico and parts south)
2. Anglo (the U.K. and its English-speaking former colonies, including the U.S.A.)
3. Western European ( "the Continent")
4. Eastern European (the former Soviet Bloc)
5. North African (from the Mediterranean coast south to the Sahel)
6. Sub-Saharan (specifically as contrasted with North African)
7. West Asian (from the Mediterranean east to Iran)
8. Central Asian (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and so on)
9. South Asian (dominated by India)
10. East Asian (China, Japan, Korea, etc.)

Of those, I'd say you could afford to break up Latin American and South Asian further, and Sub-Saharan a lot further, if the campaign requires it. But if you want an even 10 to hit Cultural Adaptability on the head, this list works well enough.

You would almost certainly find "Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously" (Pyramid #3/44: Alternate GURPS II) and "Speaking in Tongues" (Pyramid #3/54: Social Engineering) to be of value, then.

Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 664970)

You have to know something meaningful about your specific target, and then turn that into an insult. Rapier Wit is worthless against mysterious hit men and spies, randomly encountered thugs, golems and zombies with no personal life, strangers on the street, and anybody with any skill at all at hiding his true self or past. It's specifically intended for old rivals, public figures, and others you know something about. If you want it to work on just about any ordinary person, you must add Words of Power, +100% -- and if you want it to affect golems, robots, undead, and so on, you'll also need Cosmic, +300%.

I'm not saying that it still isn't somewhat cheap, but it's probably a good idea to start the price comparisons in light of the correct assumptions.

And I hasten to add that it's a cinematic trait for silly cinematic campaigns, where things like Bulletproof Nudity and Melee Etiquette are free for everybody already. You're effectively paying 5 points for another cinematic rule that only benefits you. Arguably, that's 4 points more than the perk it ought to be in a game like that.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Feel free to share this:

As written on p. B79, Rapier Wit can be used repeatedly on the same target and doesn't spell out very clearly that it requires any specific information. If the GM wants to use it as written, fair play.

However, also as written on p. B79, to affect a group, you must know something the entire group has in common. The intent is not "to affect a group, there's a new requirement that you know something about them all," but "to affect a group, the existing requirement that you know something about the target is narrowed to something common to all of your targets." Unfortunately, the rider requiring the user to know something about even a single target went AWOL somewhere between this trait's first appearance and its current incarnation. That omission is an unequivocal erratum. The intended level of knowledge is the name of an individual – or, for a group, a designation applicable to them all (e.g., Cardinal's Guard, the Turatello boys, or "you goddamned East Side scum") – plus some commonly known fact . . . which need not be intimate, much less truly secret.

As for repeated use, nothing says you can't allow that. However, it would be more flavorful to require a new taunt for each use (my main concern isn't balance but rather keeping this flavorful, slightly silly social ability from degenerating into a coldly mechanistic attack). If the player can't come up with a new fact per use, I'd at least start applying -1 per successive use. After all, p. B79 specifically says, "any modifier the GM assigns based on your description of the verbal attack." I'd deem it fair, even canon for the GM to invoke this to apply the generic -1 per repeated attempt on p. B348.

Dungeon Fantasy is an interesting special case: Going by the monsters in DF 2 and DF Monsters 1, 43% are IQ 0-5 and/or Bestial beings that don't even have a language, so you can't use witticisms on them; 35% are golems, Elder Things, or greater demons or undead with Unfazeable, and thus explicitly immune; and just 22% are sapient and affected by emotions. Thus, Rapier Wit is only an option about 1/5 of the time . . . and that 1/5 of monsters are mostly fodder, and of course they probably don't speak common languages. So you know what? Ignore all the stuff I said above and let Rapier Wit work repeatedly on targets, as long as the user knows their language. In DF, that's such a rare set of conditions that it seems only fair.