Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

Yes, plunging to the depths will always be hard. But why does this excuse making things wider, too?

I think that's basically it. Not even the legacy part, but how broad and unified the system should be. Personally, I'd much rather have ten wood-working implements than one tool for wood, one for iron, one for plastic. I can live with the fact that the results are a bit, well, wooden, as long as they're smooth.

I do understand that this is a matter of taste, don't get me wrong. Just like a lot of people like huge dice pools or polyehdral ones, or all the different and funky subsystems of early D&D.

Maybe I don't trust game designers enough by wanting *one* system I can fully grok instead of their fiat. Any shrinks with Austrian accents here?

I can live with that trade-off. It's not too different from someone having a "disintegrate everything" power, and then encountering a material that can cope with this corrosive damage setup.

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

We are in a thread about a product which filled a lot of the gaps relevant to domain covered by Imbuements that existed at the time PU1 was written.

They certainly have different design priorities, strengths, and weaknesses. But, with PU4, the Powers-style advantages-and-enhancements system covers most of the space covered by Imbuements. The only real gap is lack of coverage of Transformation-style Imbuements, which is a fairly easy gap to fill given the other tools in PU4 as guidance.

I think its a lot simpler than that, and I think the book this thread is about already did most of it.

mhd -- in the post you are responding to -- explicitly said that that wasn't the case, and that he didn't want those systems discarded, he just wanted the Powers system to also to have the coverage to make it a viable option to cover the domain.

PU4 already has rules for applying modifiers to a single firearm, which creates a standalone advantage, you would never need to mdoel the "normal characteristics" of the gun. You do need to know the maximum cost damage rating (amount and type) to set the cost of the upper limit that it "normally" could affect, and then decide two things:

• How to get open-ended effect rather than a fixed upper limit, and
• How you make it apply to multiple weapons instead of one

There are several possible approaches to each of these within the frameworks of the advantages-and-modifiers system, options for the first:

• A common recommendation for making open-ended powers where the needed level is externally determined: set the base level using what the GM feels is the maximum normal/common level needed in the campaign, and then apply a +50% Cosmic modifier on top of that to make it unlimited.
• Follow the basic rule for when a character gets access to increased weapon damage for a weapon covered by enhancement in Power-Ups 4 (p. 11): set the initial cost of the advantage based o what the character initially has access to, and when the character gets accessed to more, increase the cost of the ability (since the ability already belongs to the character and the cost is changing, this changes the point value of the character -- under normal circumstances, I would imagine, incurring point debt if unspent points aren't available.)
• Set the initial cost by whatever metric seems appropriate -- common upper campaign limit, what the PC initially has access to, or whatever -- and allow it to be bought up later. But the buy-up isn't automatic, and if the PC needs to effect a more powerful weapon than their existing power covers at its design cost, use the usual Powers rules for extra effort.

There are a few options for the second feature as well, but to me it seems that the clearly best is to add a Cosmic +300% enhancement to the advantage permitting the enhancement on a single weapon to allow to be used on any firearm the owner uses (this is very similar to the "Unrestricted Powers" Cosmic modifier in PU4, on p. 8.)

Sure, but with PU4 and a few simple guidelines of the type above (and the Follow-Up based approach to Transformations in my earlier post in this thread), the situation switches and it becomes easier to handle every conceivable ability that involves apply one or more modifiers to an existing attack and/or replacing an existing attack's damage with damage of a different type or a different attack/affliction/etc.-like effect and/or applying a secondary attack/affliction/etc. effect to an existing attack within the Powers-style advantages-and-modifiers system, whereas Imbuements gets you only the specific effects written up as Imbuements.

Neither, quite explicitly, is the person you are responding to.

This characterization is directly contrary to the explicit text of the post you are responding to:

So you aren't merely reading messages that aren't there, you are inverting the message that is there.

No one is arguing against that -- except maybe you arguing against the usability of the Powers-style approach to the certain domains -- so I don't see what your problem is.

Certainly, Imbuements and the Spell-based magic systems are stylistically compatible with each other, though I think its debatable whether either is "reasonably compatible" in general, rather than within narrow campaign assumptions, with powers-as-advantages as described in the Basic Set and expanded in Powers and other subsequent works. Certainly if balance is a factor in compatibility, there are pretty strong reasons to question that.

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

It's not an excuse; it's merely pointing out that it would be unfair to demand something of the system that you don't like if you're not going to demands the same thing of the system that you do like. Get an Enhancement creation system in place, and then we can talk about how there's a problem with the lack of an Imbuement creation system.

Of course, you'll first need to convince people that the lack of an Enhancement creation system is a problem.

Meanwhile, I'd rather have access to tools for working iron and plastic than to be forced to make everything out of wood. Carpentry can only do so much, and I'd much prefer to have access to swords and guns rather than being limited to clubs, staves, and bows.

I fully understand that a lot can be done with the powers-and-modifiers approach; and it is possible to successfully make it the centerpiece of an entire game system: both HERO and Mutants & Mastermnds have done exactly that. But when I want to play that sort of game, I break out Mutants & Masterminds to do so, because it does it so much better than GURPS does. I play GURPS when I want to do something that M&M can't easily handle.

"And there's nothing wrong with wanting to do dumb things." If you truly understand that it's a matter of taste, you should also understand that having all published material doing it your way does a disservice to the fans whose preferences differ from yours.

I'm not following. In what way are the choices limited to "one system I can fully grok" vs. "designer fiat" (whatever that means)? Please start by defining what you're meaning by "their fiat".

If you can live with it, fine; live with it. But don't force that tradeoff on me.

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

The Basic Set, Powers, and PU4 (and possibly other sources) all address creating new modifiers with guidelines on cost assessment, using the catch-all modifier categories (Cosmic for Enhancements and Accessibility for Limitations.)

So, can we talk about the lack of support for Imbuement creation now?

And improving the depth of support for the advantages-and-enhancements-style system, including in the domain were Imbuements are an option, doesn't take that support away from you, just like improving the depth of support for the advantages-and-enhancements-style system with Powers which better covered many domains -- including part of the domain covered by the spells-as-skills magic system -- didn't take that system away. In fact, it provided the basis for expanded support for the spells-as-skills system as rules from the advantages-and-enhancements system were ported from Powers to the spells-as-skills system in Thaumatology.

No one in this thread has suggested forcing anything on you.

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

it's not that some one has, its that when you ask for something to change, its the same thing as you asking others to accept it when they don't want it.

I like imbuements because it fits in with what I want to do, how I envision most of the 'powers' I come up with. I like having something that is flexible and can be combined as easily as imbuements. PU4 addresses adding enhancements to unarmed attacks and weapons but also states things you cannot do (like adding ranged to an unarmed attack is a no no).

you can ignore those things, which in doing so makes imbuements somewhat less needed. but then you run into the next problem, cost.

the cost for me adding affects insubstantial can be anything from 1pt to a lot. because the cost is based on an innate attack equivalent to your thrust damage (for unarmed). where as imbuements is just a skill. the trade off is your enhancement only works for your lower damage (if your damage went up) but it doesn't need a skill roll or cost FP, where as imbuements work no matter your damage lvl.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, if you manage to work out how to do imbuements, taking out the needs a roll and FP and seeing the difference in mods, you would then have an answer to magic as well. which would be cool.

also, using PU4 you can't turn one type of attack into another (turning crushing into burning or such).

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

One step closer to my GURPS Exalted conversion... :D

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

This is one of the big problems with the enhancements routes, in my opinion. IE strength buffs. Afflictions, equipment like potions or high tech drugs/stimulants, the Blessed advantage (which offers variable bonuses)...

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

I'm skipping the whole de gustibus parts here, as I don't really want to pollute the thread here any further. Talking about the properties of "ideal" systems really doesn't get us some where, and whenever I notice the urge to use programming language comparisons, it's better for me to hit the eject button ;)

I don't know how we got to that assumption, as this basically was my "entry point" in this thread, just vice versa: "If you want to add Armor Divisor to every rifle you wield, you use Imbuements."

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

Sounds useful. I'll probably buy it, especially since RPK is usually very careful about not messing up previous rules by mistake.

Re: GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements
 

How is this for a start? (sample..)

Animal Empathy: Remote, +50%, [P48]; Specialized, (-40% (All land or all aquatic), -50% (one class), -60% (one family), -80% (one species)), [B87, P48];
Appearance: Universal, +25%, [B21]; Off-the-Shelf Looks, -50%, [B21];
Binding: Constricting, +75%, [P43]; Engulfing, +60%, [B40]; Only Damaged By (N of bur,cur,cr,cut), (+30% (1), +20% (2), +10% (3)), [B40]; Sticky, +20%, [B40]; Suffocating, +75%, [P43]; Super-Binding, +400%, [SU25]; Unbreakable, +40%, [B40]; Environmental, -20% (target touching) to -40% (surrounded), [B40]; One-Shot, -10%, [B40];
Catfall: Feather Fall, +20%, [P43]; Parachute, -30%, [P43];
Chameleon: Controllable, +20%, [P43]; Dynamic, +40%, [P43]; Extended, +20%/sense after first, [B41]; Always On, -10%, [B41];

Just a small section to gauge interest, format, and to make sure I wouldn't be posting TMI for SJG's liking. (and PK's not wrong, the full list is 730 entries (30,000 characters, nearly 4000 words) as plain text in this format, without any detailed descriptions!)

I've compiled a list of all Special Modifiers (that I can find), for all the 4e books I own (most of them.)

The list has the Advantage, and a list of Modifiers (Enhancements, then Limitations, Alphabetic within each of those subsections). Each Modifier lists the Name, +/-N%, and the Page Reference (s).
For Modifiers which have multiple levels, most list the various levels and their respective %'s (see Animal Empathy/Specialised, and Binding/Damaged By.. above!), but there are a few which are just too complicated to list like that, so they still say 'Variable'!