DFRPG questions: Discrepancy/errata (?) edition

[Kristoffer]

Originally Posted by tbone

Instead of my usual goofy batches of questions ("How does this rule work?" "What does this creature look like?"), I have a handful that look like possible discrepancies or errata. Maybe. Or I'm just missing something...


1) Highest HT ever?

Monsters lists ogres as having ST 20, HP 20, and HT 13 – with notes saying these stats can go as high as ST 30 and HT 23.

I wonder whether that was intended to be an extra 10 levels of ST (so ST 30, HP 30), not an extra 10 levels each of ST and HT. The text seems pretty clear on HT... but I've never seen a monster (or any GURPS creature/character?) approach that level of HT. I'm not even sure what HT 23 would represent...

But maybe ogres are weird that way?


2) Mystery asterisk?

The spear and trident have melee reach 1, 2* used two-handed, reach 1* used one-handed. The asterisk indicates "the weapon requires a Ready maneuver to change reach (e.g., between 1 and 2)." But one-handed use doesn't offer a choice of reaches, only reach 1.

Should one-handed use for these weapons correctly specify reach 1, not 1*? Or does the asterisk here indicate "requires a Ready to switch to two-hand use"? (Maybe that's it, though a few other weapons allowing one- and two-handed use, like the bastard sword, have no asterisk.)


3) The true cost of tentacular intrusion?

Magic Items 2 p44: The main text for the Wand of Tentacular Intrusion says the wielder can optionally cast the Evisceration spell with a melee strike, but "Cost is always 10 HP". I'm assuming that should be FP, not HP.


4) The breadth of Search?

In Adventurers, the description of Search skill suggests it's used only to search a person. The description of Smuggling suggests Search is also used to search packs, wagons, etc.

A discrepancy? (If so, it's certainly a minor one. I vote for a simple fix of "assume the Search description mentions packs, etc. as well".)


5) The worth of gems?

Exploits p74 makes clear that gems, unlike coins, need to be evaluated, and don't trade at full value; Exploits p16 backs this up. However, Adventurers p54 and p67, under discussions of Wealth, lump gems in with coins as items that do trade at full value.

Is this a disrepancy? Or do gems simply work differently from coins and normal goods? Maybe like this:

Gems fall between coins and other valuables, in that PCs' estimation of value matters, but Wealth level doesn't. That would set three classes of treasure, for purpose of selling value:

1. Coins, ingots, other forms of precious metals: Always "sell" at full value. (Neither estimation of value nor Wealth matter, at least for common precious metals.)
2. Gems: Sell at lower of full value and estimated value. (PCs' estimation of value matters; Wealth does not.)
3. Other valuables: Sell at lower of full value (modified for Wealth) and estimated value (modified for Wealth)

Is that how things work here?

===

1) I would assume it is correct. A HT of 23, would represent a tough as hell monster, with very little likelyhood of getting takendown by even an arrow to the eye.

2) the asterisk is there because it takes a ready maneuveur to switch between one-handed and two-handed grip.

3) I doubt they mean FP, but I am not sure.

4) I imagine that, you use search due to the deliberate hiding on pack animals and other forms of small transportation. Otherwise for looting a room, I ask my players to roll Scrounging, and for deliberately hidden doors, safes, etc. they roll traps. I assume that rather than having the guard roll several different rolls, they choose Search as the most appropriate.

5) Might be an actual discrepancy, but I think that since a gem requires an evaluation, then the idea is that vendors only accept them for what they think they are worth, compared to coins that trade at full value regardless.

[Balor Patch]

1) Of course, see DF11:5 for how it's officially done. I, on the other hand, think it should be multiplicitive. For instance, as the average ogre has double human ST so the maximum ogre should have double the maximum human ST, but never exceed IQ 14.

2) Yes, I think it (and the Kusari not being 2-handed) are typos ported over.

[sjmdw45]

Additional discrepancy: the rules for Homogeneous creatures on Exploits pg. 55 say they ignore all wounding modifiers for hit location, but the chart on the back of Exploits says they take extra injury for cutting/crushing hits to the neck (and face/skull too for corrosion).

[tbone]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Additional discrepancy: the rules for Homogeneous creatures on Exploits pg. 55 say they ignore all wounding modifiers for hit location, but the chart on the back of Exploits says they take extra injury for cutting/crushing hits to the neck (and face/skull too for corrosion).

Hm, good call. The table is in line with the text where piercing and impaling damage are concerned, but it also gives homogenous creatures their own special set of damage mods for corrosion, cutting, and crushing dam.

I go by the table, and I assume it's "correct" (if for no other reason than that tables feel more deliberate and "official" than text).

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by tbone

Hm, good call. The table is in line with the text where piercing and impaling damage are concerned, but it also gives homogenous creatures their own special set of damage mods for corrosion, cutting, and crushing dam.

I go by the table, and I assume it's "correct" (if for no other reason than that tables feel more deliberate and "official" than text).

It does feel more "official", but to me it also feels less logical. Why would a homogeneous creature like an earth elemental take more damage when you hit it in the neck than the leg or head? Even if that's the "official" rule I am inclined to go with "no wounding modifiers for hit location, period."

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

It does feel more "official", but to me it also feels less logical. Why would a homogeneous creature like an earth elemental take more damage when you hit it in the neck than the leg or head? Even if that's the "official" rule I am inclined to go with "no wounding modifiers for hit location, period."

GURPS p.60 Homogenous explicitly includes No Brain and No Vitals. Those options are directly below it right along with others not mentioned: No Blood, No Eyes, No Head, and No Neck; so the lack of mention is probably not an oversight and the addition would need to be priced in. On the other hand, I'd almost always rather have HP +20 than Homogenous so maybe it is.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

GURPS p.60 Homogenous explicitly includes No Brain and No Vitals. Those options are directly below it right along with others not mentioned: No Blood, No Eyes, No Head, and No Neck; so the lack of mention is probably not an oversight and the addition would need to be priced in. On the other hand, I'd almost always rather have HP +20 than Homogenous so maybe it is.

At least in DFRPG play, Homogeneous makes monsters much tougher than +20 HP. A 45 HP Giant Ape still goes unconscious in one shot if you shoot it in the eye (or sword to the skull if you're flying), whereas a 15 HP Bronze Spider or 25 HP Earth Elemental takes several whacks with a sword to disable and are relatively impervious to arrows (since bodkins and cutting heads are mutually exclusive).

Ignoring all wounding modifiers for homogeneous also simplifies running homogeneous monsters: having to look up whether Earth Elementals have No Neck feels like a needless complication.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

2) Yes, I think it (and the Kusari not being 2-handed) are typos ported over.

Hm, I didn't see that one. Maybe the attack itself uses only one hand, but if the other hand is assumed to be holding on to the other end, yeah, I'd expect the "two-handed" dagger mark to be there.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

1) Of course, see DF11:5 for how it's officially done.

Ah, checking that out just now: I think that really clears it up. The book's not setting any special features of ogres here; it's just noting a max HT 23, in the same way almost any monster/human/other creature might have max HT 20+. Nothing odd after all!

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Kristoffer

1) I would assume it is correct. A HT of 23, would represent a tough as hell monster, with very little likelyhood of getting takendown by even an arrow to the eye.

2) the asterisk is there because it takes a ready maneuveur to switch between one-handed and two-handed grip.

3) I doubt they mean FP, but I am not sure.

4) I imagine that, you use search due to the deliberate hiding on pack animals and other forms of small transportation. Otherwise for looting a room, I ask my players to roll Scrounging, and for deliberately hidden doors, safes, etc. they roll traps. I assume that rather than having the guard roll several different rolls, they choose Search as the most appropriate.

5) Might be an actual discrepancy, but I think that since a gem requires an evaluation, then the idea is that vendors only accept them for what they think they are worth, compared to coins that trade at full value regardless.

1) The text does seem clear in specifying HT 23. It's just... odd in the game; no other monster is built like that. It essentially means "some ogres succeed at all HT rolls (crits aside), die only at -5xHP, etc.".

Maybe that idea comes from some depiction of ogres in literature; I don't know. But... well, nothing wrong with an oddity or few in the game. I'll take it as written, not as an error.

2) That may be, but then again, there are other weapons that allow one- or two-handed use but don't have the asterisk. (Even then, maybe everything is according to a plan: perhaps the rule is "the weapon gets an asterisk if it can be used 1- or 2-handed with the same skill; no asterisk if 1- vs 2-handed use involves different skills (a la bastard sword)".)

3) I'm guessing it should be FP, for the simple reason that spells are cast using FP, not HP.

4) Your procedures for searching sound fine. I only note that the book's text isn't clear. I'd like to see future updates note in both descriptions that Search is indeed used for searching packs/wagons, not only pockets, bodies, etc.

Anyway, all minor stuff. Overall, DFRPG is nicely clear, and low on errors & contradictions.

Thanks for the reply!