Psionic Powers: Brute Force vs Will

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Edges

I considered that.

The two obstacles to this (which I welcome advice on overcoming) are:
1. The Rule of 16 limits the benefit of high skill (especially vs a high Will)

No, it's the other way around if I understand that rule right. Higher skill above 16 still works to neutralize defender resistance which is also above 16.

[Edges]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No, it's the other way around if I understand that rule right. Higher skill above 16 still works to neutralize defender resistance which is also above 16.

As I understand it, if you have a 20 skill and you face a 16 Will, it's 16 vs 16. If you trade all your FP for a bunch more skill, it's still 16 vs 16.

EDIT: Higher skill lets you roll even odds against higher Will, sure. But who wants even odds? That's where the FP comes in.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Edges

As I understand it, if you have a 20 skill and you face a 16 Will, it's 16 vs 16. If you trade all your FP for a bunch more skill, it's still 16 vs 16.

EDIT: Higher skill lets you roll even odds against higher Will, sure. But who wants even odds? That's where the FP comes in.

Exactly right. Higher skill lets you do trickier stuff but you still need to lower your skill to 16 or the defenders Will. So if your target has a 16 or less Will your adjusted kill can't exceed 16, but if he has say a 17 will your skill would be adjusted to that. Says so on p. 349 of the Basic.

Ghostdancer

[Crakkerjakk]

I still don't see the reason for the rule of 16. Why can't an incredibly bad-ass supernatural threat simply crush weak-willed opposition like a t-rex would crush a squirrel?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I still don't see the reason for the rule of 16. Why can't an incredibly bad-ass supernatural threat simply crush weak-willed opposition like a t-rex would crush a squirrel?

They can! All for the low low price of +50%! But wait! there's more!

Seriously though, Cosmic, no rule of 16, is a +50% modifier found in GURPS Psionic Campaigns, your BAST just needs to slap that onto his power and he's good to roll.

Ghostdancer

[Desthro]

Im down with the cosmic enhancement, but if you want a more generic form, let's take a rule of 16 effect into place.

I say if your skill is sufficiently high that it is capped by the defender's will, (eg 16+) Brute Force can effectively lower the will for an FP expidenture maybe -1 will for 2-3FP?. It's not too much of a gain at that point, but makes it tactical enough to consider.

You could also model Brute Force as a "mental feint" if you want to forgive the comparison. Make a check as usual with the usual defenses, and for every point you beat the defense by, you give them a penalty on their next defense, perhaps you "lured" them out of the maze, causing them to cause a lapse in attention, or w/e. If feints exist in physical combat, with "ruses" (IQ-based feint), why shouldn't similar things exist in psi?

Or, you could just assign a house rule that says, -3FP for -1 will, or something similar. To be honest it's not THAT broken, and if there are too many targets, a severely exhausted psion is going to be eaten alive.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I still don't see the reason for the rule of 16. Why can't an incredibly bad-ass supernatural threat simply crush weak-willed opposition like a t-rex would crush a squirrel?

The meta-reason that Kromm has referred to before is that, for RPGs, it's better to give defense the advantage over offense. Failing to affect someone with your attack power is annoying, but you can usually try again. Failing to defend, on the other hand, can quite often be character-ending, whether in the literal death sense, or in the sense that it makes the player not want to play the character any more.
Since it's usually easier to push an attack higher with fewer points than a defense, GURPS gives mental defense a shot in the arm by effectively saying that someone who has specialized in defense will never have less than a 50-50 chance of resisting an effect.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

The meta-reason that Kromm has referred to before is that, for RPGs, it's better to give defense the advantage over offense. Failing to affect someone with your attack power is annoying, but you can usually try again. Failing to defend, on the other hand, can quite often be character-ending, whether in the literal death sense, or in the sense that it makes the player not want to play the character any more.
Since it's usually easier to push an attack higher with fewer points than a defense, GURPS gives mental defense a shot in the arm by effectively saying that someone who has specialized in defense will never have less than a 50-50 chance of resisting an effect.

How is failing a mental defense roll that different from failing a dodge roll v. a high ST grappler or HMG fire? A high ST grappler can easily twist your limbs off in a turn, and HMG fire (unless you're using blowthrough) will easily instantly force a death check on most people with a torso hit, which is where fire not specifically aimed at another body part automatically hits by RAW. Seems like it should be a cinematic campaign switch, to me. If a GM doesn't want his players to die messily, he shouldn't throw opponents that can cause them to die messily at them, or he should make clear the levels of defenses needed in his games.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

How is failing a mental defense roll that different from failing a dodge roll v. a high ST grappler or HMG fire?

Failing a dodge roll against a high ST grappler or an HMG doesn't automatically mean you've lost and now will be used as a tool against your side. You can still make your saving throw versus death.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

How is failing a mental defense roll that different from failing a dodge roll v. a high ST grappler or HMG fire?

Well, there's a few things going on there. First, it's never possible for a defense to be impossible, if you get a chance to roll - a critical defense always succeeds, no matter the penalties. So that provides some level of defense priority.
Secondly, physical defenses usually have more ways of boosting them than mental defenses. Someone who's dodging can retreat, dodge and drop, find cover, all-out defend, etc, while parrying and blocking can also be raised very high by investing in the relevant skill, and most GMs are more willing to allow extremely high (20+) skill levels then they are to allow extremely high basic attributes. Also, physical defenses are more easily layered - you can buy armor that can save your ass even when your active defense fails. Most mental defensive gear simply add to your resistance roll, rather than providing a backup defense if your first fails.
Finally, people often react worse to mental "damage" than to the strictly physical. Players tend to like to think of their characters as perfect avatars of their will; taking that away can lead to more of a sense of violation and anger than simply losing hit points could ever inflict.

For all these reasons, I agree with GURPS' designers that a bit more primacy to mental defense than physical is a good idea.