Malediction with no range

[Infornific]

Question about Afflicition w/Malediction that came to mind while commenting on another thread. Suppose you wanted an Affliction with the Malediction enhancement (Will v HT to take effect) but no range - if you want to Afflict someone else you need to touch them. What would be the appropriate Limitation or is this technically allowed by rule?

[Nereidalbel]

Melee C. Optionally, throw in the 0 point feature to base it on a skill roll instead of your Will, making it [Insert unarmed skill here] vs HT.

[Infornific]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

Melee C. Optionally, throw in the 0 point feature to base it on a skill roll instead of your Will, making it [Insert unarmed skill here] vs HT.

Thanks - GURPS Character builder seemed to think that would create a different attack mode. I'm actually looking for a framework for a buffing type spell - i.e., the Affliction grants an Advantage and to "cast the spell" the mage has to either touch the target or cast it on himself.

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Infornific

Thanks - GURPS Character builder seemed to think that would create a different attack mode. I'm actually looking for a framework for a buffing type spell - i.e., the Affliction grants an Advantage and to "cast the spell" the mage has to either touch the target or cast it on himself.

"Different attack mode" in GCA means it's moving from your Ranged attack table to your Melee one.

[The Benj]

I've done that as Melee, C, no Parry (-35%).

[Anders]

You don't need Malediction - just go with "Based on Different Attribute" (p.B102).

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Anders

You don't need Malediction - just go with "Based on Different Attribute" (p.B102).

Malediction ignores DR, which is a very significant factor.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

Malediction ignores DR, which is a very significant factor.

If its a buff, presumably the recipient won't be resisting anyway.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

If its a buff, presumably the recipient won't be resisting anyway.

It has to be a Malediction for the target to be able to waive the right to resist, per Powers, p. 40 under Beneficial Afflictions.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Bookman

It has to be a Malediction for the target to be able to waive the right to resist, per Powers, p. 40 under Beneficial Afflictions.

Oh, thank you. There's a lot to learn in GURPS.