[Psionic Powers] Do inanimate targets resist Malediction with HT or Will?

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

We're talking about the Psionic Powers rules, which makes this option (that targets lacking Will resist with HT instead) the default for Psi. So the assumption is that it's not ignorable, or at least not intended to be (but of course a GM can do as they like.)

Don't you find the second paragraph of the inset on p12 to indicate otherwise, or do you suppose that it is referring to something besides the general rule? No snark intended, just honest curiosity.

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

How do you know that extra effort, gestalts, required psi skills all "add up" to exactly zero?

By definition. Psionic power modifiers are priced at -10% (or -0% for Antipsi), and the rules state that a power modifier can have beneficial and limiting options that apply to a given power/source, without changing the PM's percentage value: see pp. 174-178 of Powers. I don't know how to calculate the zero percent for them, and that's not my problem.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why can't Maledictions are resisted by HT for non-sapients be part of that tally?

Because, unlike extra effort, gestalts, required psi skills, etc., limiting only Malediction-enhanced Innate Attacks and doing nothing to the rest of the power is not an option given to power/source. That's exactly what we call limitation. If the argument "With Psychokinesis power modifier, 'Malediction-enhanced IA is resisted with HT by non-sentients' is a zero-cost part of the PM and not limitation." were valid, then we would lose any logical reason to reject absurd statement like:

• "With ESP power modifier, 'Clairsentience suffers darkness penalty' is a zero-cost part of the PM and not limitation."
• "With Psychic Healing power modifier, 'Unaging requires success rolls to stop aging' is a zero-cost part of the PM and not limitation."
• "With Telepathy power modifier, 'Empathy cannot tell the target's emotion unless the user wins a Quick Contest vs. the target's Will' is a zero-cost part of the PM and not limitation."

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Don't you find the second paragraph of the inset on p12 to indicate otherwise, or do you suppose that it is referring to something besides the general rule? No snark intended, just honest curiosity.

The second half of the first paragraph is describing a particular circumstance (the Psi makes his roll by a MoS of 3+Target SM) in which this particular rule (inanimate objects resist with HT) can be waived. The second paragraph is referring to that option, saying that the HT roll is ignored for the sake of speed and simplicity, but that if there's significant tension involved (or if the object is a Gadget) then it should always get a HT roll.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

Because, unlike extra effort, gestalts, required psi skills, etc., limiting only Malediction-enhanced Innate Attacks and doing nothing to the rest of the power is not an option given to power/source.

Clearly some Source-Specific rules can apply to only some abilities of a Power. In the case of Psionics only Telepaths can form gestalts at range, does that mean that non-telepaths have a limitation "Cannot form gestalts at range"?

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Clearly some Source-Specific rules can apply to only some abilities of a Power. In the case of Psionics only Telepaths can form gestalts at range, does that mean that non-telepaths have a limitation "Cannot form gestalts at range"?

The rules for gestalts on pp. 9-11 of Psionic Powers is a fine-tuned version of the Combining Powers section on pp. 170-172 of Powers. Combining Powers requires either making physical contact to other psis or establishing a real-time mental link to other psis via Mind Reading advantage or Telesend advantage. Under Psionic Powers, these two advantages are both in the dominion of Telepathy power, and this is why only telepaths can use Combining Powers ("form gestalts") at range.

The fact that only telepaths can form ranged gestalts is not a limitation, but is a natural consequence of the fact that the game designer restricts Mind Reading and Telesend advantages to Telepathy power (for the sake of niche protection). This is just a faithful application of the Powers rules. It doesn't unequally deprives non-Telepathy powers of their utility, so there's no room for a "limitation" such as "Cannot form gestalts at range (= Cannot buy Mind Reading or Telesend)".

If the argument "'Cannot buy Mind Reading or Telesend' should be a limitation for any non-Telepathy powers" were valid, then absurd statements like "'Cannot buy Telekinesis' should be a limitation for any non-Psychokinesis powers", "'Cannot buy Warp' should be a limitation for any non-Teleportation powers" would be equally valid, but no one including you and me would support them.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

The second half of the first paragraph is describing a particular circumstance (the Psi makes his roll by a MoS of 3+Target SM) in which this particular rule (inanimate objects resist with HT) can be waived. The second paragraph is referring to that option, saying that the HT roll is ignored for the sake of speed and simplicity, but that if there's significant tension involved (or if the object is a Gadget) then it should always get a HT roll.

I can see how just reading the text leads to that. What about the new paragraph? That implies a separate concept, which is what suggests the application to the general rule. That could be an editorial misplacement, I suppose. Maybe we should just ask Rev the intent of those lines *lightbulb*

[Gurps Fan]

I found a way to ignore the matter.

Any limitation reduces the utility of advantage in some way, but not all limitations are priced at greater than -0%. E.g., being able to fly only for 11 minutes per day (Flight with Limited Use, 11 uses) is obviously less advantageous than being able to fly indefinitely, but the rules are quite explicit that Limited Use of more than 10 uses/day is "not a significant limitation" (p. B102). (Whether this is a reasonable pricing or not is another matter.)

With Psychokinesis power modifier, Malediction-enhanced Burning Attack suffers a greater chance of being resisted by non-sentients -- it's certainly less advantageous than an ordinary Malediction which forces inanimate targets to resist with Will 0. Thus, Pyrokinesis has an obvious limitation "Nuisance Effect, Inanimate targets resist this attack with HT instead of Will 0", but the designer somehow concluded that this is a small limitation worth only -0%, and forgot to add this limitation in the ability writeup.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I can see how just reading the text leads to that. What about the new paragraph? That implies a separate concept, which is what suggests the application to the general rule. That could be an editorial misplacement, I suppose. Maybe we should just ask Rev the intent of those lines *lightbulb*

So I did ask, and...

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

The "MOS 3+ means don't roll resistance for inanimate objects" rule is intended to simplify and streamline play, and the GM should ignore it when the outcome of an adventure hinges upon the roll, etc.

Another misconception of mine corrected. Boffo! :)

[Dwarf99]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Attribute: N/A is absolutely a house rule (and personally one that I don't like at all), by RAW it doesn't exist.

I'd like to point out that machines have the equivalent of that for their FP (although I suppose that's technically a secondary characteristic).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

I'd like to point out that machines have the equivalent of that for their FP (although I suppose that's technically a secondary characteristic).

I'm aware of that, and I agree that the version of FP N/A in the Machine Metrait is a feature. I don't agree that IQ 0 is a feature, for example. I tried to explain my reasoning in the other thread.