Houserule Idea - always resist with critical success instead of Rule of 16

[Qhaysh]

You could also set a relative limit, so to say. For example a cap of resisting attribute + 6. Against average people, the effective skill would be 16, as usual. For more remarkable opponents, it would be a little higher (FREX HT 16 would make for a skill cap of 22).


Here's a better example: Mr. Archmage knows Stone to Flesh at 25. First, he tries his spell against Mr. Average who, as one would expect, has HT 10. Since the cap is Attribute+6, Mr. Archmage rolls vs. 16 (Mr. Average's HT of 10, plus six); while Mr. Average rolls against 10 (his HT).

If Mr. Archmage tried to affect Mr. Resistant (HT 16), it would work like this: Mr. Archmage would roll against 22 (which corresponds to Mr. Resistant's HT of 16, plus six); and Mr. Resistant would roll against 16 (his HT).

This means that skilled opponents will always have better chances of affecting more vulnerable opponents, but not overwhelmingly so. You could always lower the cap to attribute+4, for example.

I'm not very good at statistics, so I won't crunch any numbers. But I'm pretty sure there's an acceptable margin there somewhere, just not sure if it's really attribute+6.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Bruno

A resistance roll is a kind of quick contest. Quick contests do not have critical success or critical failure, they purely compare margin of success. There's no note in how to resolve either a quick contest or a resistance roll that a critical trumps anything. It merely ensures that you succeed, which is a requirement to win a resistance roll (you must succeed) but the OTHER requirement is MOS.

Critical doesn't adjust MOS.

Succeeding is only required for the attacker in a resistance roll, I think? The resister can win without 'succeeding' at their roll.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

The odd thing about resistance rolls vs. spells, to me, is that if you critically succeed with a resisted spell, the victim gets no defense (per Magic p. 13, for example).

Any other success, and they resist normally with a contest mechanic, and must beat your margin of success. They can neither critically succeed or critically fail. You, however, are limited by the Rule of 16.

So it's a skill roll vs. a contest mechanic, rather than strictly a Quick Contest.

Oddly back in 1e-3e days, you could effectively critically fail your spell resistance rolls - there was an example of a badly blown resistance roll by an orc vs. a Mass Sleep spell. In the 1e GURPS Fantasy, pg. 10:

Orc 6 rolls an 18! The GM rules that Orc 6 falls into a coma . . .

Interestingly, back in the day, there wasn't any mention of automatic victory over resistance by a spell.

But like I said, back in the day. I'm talking 1986 and 1st edition GURPS Fantasy.

I do think the current rules are a bit odd, though, and we've long house ruled that a 3-4 always resists a spell and a 17-18 always fails to resist. It doesn't seem to break the game, even if you otherwise retain the Rule of 16, like we do.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

The odd thing about resistance rolls vs. spells, to me, is that if you critically succeed with a resisted spell, the victim gets no defense (per Magic p. 13, for example).

The odd thing about Magic is that it was never completely updated for 4e. :)

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The odd thing about Magic is that it was never completely updated for 4e. :)

What I was talking about can also be found in BASIC SET, p. 241.

Update GURPS Magic as much or as little as you want, spells automatically overcoming resistance on a critical is in BASIC SET.

[Yako]

Originally Posted by Qhaysh

You could also set a relative limit, so to say. For example a cap of resisting attribute + 6. Against average people, the effective skill would be 16, as usual. For more remarkable opponents, it would be a little higher (FREX HT 16 would make for a skill cap of 22).


Here's a better example: Mr. Archmage knows Stone to Flesh at 25. First, he tries his spell against Mr. Average who, as one would expect, has HT 10. Since the cap is Attribute+6, Mr. Archmage rolls vs. 16 (Mr. Average's HT of 10, plus six); while Mr. Average rolls against 10 (his HT).

If Mr. Archmage tried to affect Mr. Resistant (HT 16), it would work like this: Mr. Archmage would roll against 22 (which corresponds to Mr. Resistant's HT of 16, plus six); and Mr. Resistant would roll against 16 (his HT).

This means that skilled opponents will always have better chances of affecting more vulnerable opponents, but not overwhelmingly so. You could always lower the cap to attribute+4, for example.

I'm not very good at statistics, so I won't crunch any numbers. But I'm pretty sure there's an acceptable margin there somewhere, just not sure if it's really attribute+6.

I did toy with that, but since +6 comes pretty close to "only on critical successes" (if someone with a skill six higher than yours rolls a 10, you need a four or lower to win, if he rolls 8 or lower, you cannot win at all, better chances when he rolls a sixteen or such...), I rather go with that because this way, I needn't fiddle with the effective skill for the contest.


Hmh, okay, in this case I see even more readon to go with my houserule.
Goodbye magic resistance threshold of sixteen!^^