Regenerative Ablative DR

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

So, then your saying that Very Fast Regeneration should cost less for someone with fewer HP also?

There's certainly an argument for it. However, as standard regeneration does a wide variety of things other than simple hit point recovery, it's a bit less relevant here.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There's certainly an argument for it. However, as standard regeneration does a wide variety of things other than simple hit point recovery, it's a bit less relevant here.

Really? Regeneration effects recovery of HP (and ablative/semi-ablative DR at a 1:1 rate). It doesn't allow you to regrow lost limbs. It doesn't provide any bonus to resist disease/poison. It doesn't effect FP recovery. It doesn't bring you back to life if you die (which is important as the Extreme Regeneration character with 10 HP who fails a HT -1 roll at -10 HP is dead, no regeneration there and it only took 21 points of damage to cause it). So, if a character doesn't have ablative/semi-ablative DR, what else does Regeneration cover besides HP?

As for ablative/semi-ablative DR, well Ablative DR at 1 character point per point of DR is cheaper than HP. When lost, the character suffers no ill effects (ie, at 1/3 DR level you don't suffer any stat reduction and you don't suffer shock from lost DR only). Sure, it can be bypassed with Armor Piercing attacks (which you could add 1 lv of hardened to bring the cost up to an equal lv with extra HP), but even HP can be reduced "faster" by impailing attacks, targetted attacks to the vitals, etc. Buying massive ablative DR prevents those "wounding modifiers" unless the attack also has some form of AP on it. So, given this, why should it cost significantly less for someone to add in Regeneration?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Really? Regeneration effects recovery of HP (and ablative/semi-ablative DR at a 1:1 rate). It doesn't allow you to regrow lost limbs.

It does, however, affect how fast you recover from a variety of conditions that you only recover from when you recover all the lost hit points.

The basic issue here is:
DR 1, ablative, regenerative, should cost less than DR 1 (no limitations). It shouldn't necessarily cost a lot less, but it should cost less, because it's not as good. Buying regeneration (DR only) will always cost more than that DR 1.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It does, however, affect how fast you recover from a variety of conditions that you only recover from when you recover all the lost hit points.

The basic issue here is:
DR 1, ablative, regenerative, should cost less than DR 1 (no limitations). It shouldn't necessarily cost a lot less, but it should cost less, because it's not as good. Buying regeneration (DR only) will always cost more than that DR 1.

No. Nice try, but in essence you are trying to buy up some extra HP which can regenerate faster than your normal HP, but without having to spend the extra cost for the regeneration.

The basic issue was if using an enhancement to ablative/semi-ablative DR was fair. One of the things I showed in charts is that using a "flat" enhancement percentage isn't fair as the comparative costs have no consistancy as the amount of DR increases.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

No. Nice try, but in essence you are trying to buy up some extra HP which can regenerate faster than your normal HP, but without having to spend the extra cost for the regeneration.

Ok, explain to me how DR 1, ablative, plus instant regeneration (DR only, -80%), is superior to DR 1 (not ablative). The first costs 21 points, the second costs 5 points.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

So, then your saying that Very Fast Regeneration should cost less for someone with fewer HP also? After all, what if I design a character with only 5 HP, should I get to pay less than the 150 points for Extreme Regeneration? Should I get to pay less for Unkillable if I have only 1 HP, or should I pay more?

This comment makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by cccwebs

I think the biggest problem I have with some of the "rules modders" here is that they keep thinking that the rule they want to modidy is in a "vacuum" or that SJG just pulled something out of a hat and didn't test out the rules at all.

Some rules have been playtested, some are in a "vacuum" either because they weren't thoroughly playtested, or simply because the playtesters lacked sufficient creativity. The problem with blinkering rules which are supposed to be generic, is that you possibly end up with some lame genre being pushed on the general market. GURPS is supposed to be genre free, it's a public service to stamp it out whenever you see it. *grin*

Originally Posted by cccwebs

In your example you have want a a character with an ablative DR 5 and very fast regeneration on the DR only, so that they could regenerate the DR completely after 5 seconds. Sounds like a novel concept, but given the relatively low DR value and fast regeneration it isn't a very "sensible" combination.

Of all the comments you've made, that is the one that cuts to the essence of literalists, and why it rankles.
Creative concepts have everything to do with ideas and innovative genres, and nothing with the min/maxing or munchkiny approaches of creating combat combinations which give you the most bang for your buck.
We'll both, (literalists & modelers), slap down munchkiny point crocks, this isn't one of those.
You just don't seem to understand that things need to get modeled which are different from whatever genre you tend to prefer.
A good character, or world power concept, has to do with the inventiveness of the writer or GM, and once the genre is created, the only purpose of GURPS is to flesh it out.
GURPS isn't a genre specific setting, stop trying to make it one.
Besides, it's not that novel to have regenerative DR, it's more common in fiction as a power than fully ablative DR.

Originally Posted by cccwebs

No. Nice try, but in essence you are trying to buy up some extra HP which can regenerate faster than your normal HP, but without having to spend the extra cost for the regeneration.

No, that's not the point at all.
If 1 normal non-ablative DR, is worth 5 points, then 1 DR which is ablative cannot be worth 55 points.
All I'm seeing is you repeat a bad literal interpretation of the rules.
Those rules are there to help us model what we want in our games, not to shoehorn us into different genres, or reduce innovation and creativity.

Bad literal interpretations of rules stifle inventiveness, the advantage of GURPS is that it encourages imagination and originality. You seem to be missing the Generic and Universal part of the game description.
If I wanted staid stifling genre specific rules I'd be using D&D instead.

Originally Posted by cccwebs

The basic issue was if using an enhancement to ablative/semi-ablative DR was fair. One of the things I showed in charts is that using a "flat" enhancement percentage isn't fair as the comparative costs have no consistancy as the amount of DR increases.

No, you just showed that munchkins will clamor for a point break by taking the Regeneration Advantage instead of paying full price for regenerative ablative DR.

[cccwebs]

This comment makes no sense at all.

The comment makes lots of sense. HP have a "base" regeneration rate. Ablative/Semi-ablative DR has a "base" regeneration rate (it's the same rate as HP). So, by your logic, if I want to buy Damage Resistance(Ablative -80%) and increase it's regeneration rate, it should cost less than standard DR of equal lv. Now, to make it cost less than standard DR of the same level, the OP suggests an enhancement to offset the ablative/semi-ablative limitation, which I have already shown generates a "break even" point in which, while the ablative/semi-ablative DR with an increased regeneration rate, while still less expensive than standard DR of the same level, actually costs more than buying the ablative/semi-ablative DR and paying full cost for the Regeneration advantage (which increases the HP regeneration rate as well as increases the DR regeneration rate). Yet you want me to think that my thought are flawed?

All creativity aside, there are many great ideas which just don't translate well into GURPS character points (mostly because while they sound cool, they really aren't all that practical).

But hey, if it's your campaign, then just do what you want when it comes to setting the rules for enhancements and limitations.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

Yet you want me to think that my thought are flawed?

You're massively overcomplicating a simple issue, with the occasional strawman tossed into your arguments.
Break even issues are points you can use to influence munchkins, but it's a false argument to hold up to "modders" as you called us, or more appropriately in my case, for "modelers".

The issue is strictly buying DR, on a cost basis, any type of DR which is not as good a normal DR is worth less than 5 CP per level.
Buying Regen power for ablative DR they way you suggest is munchkin bait.

On the separate strawman, if I want to have non-ablative HP on one a one to one basis I can do that too, but that's a totally separate issue.

Originally Posted by cccwebs

All creativity aside, there are many great ideas which just don't translate well into GURPS character points (mostly because while they sound cool, they really aren't all that practical).

When something doesn't translate well, it's either the fault of the language for lacking the concepts, or of the translator not being well versed in both languages.
This translator isn't having any problem with the language, so our difference on this issue must be due to a literal interpretation of the rules which is resulting in a non-Universal and non-Generic basis on your part.
Concepts come first, rules are just there to allow them to interact with other concepts.

Originally Posted by cccwebs

But hey, if it's your campaign, then just do what you want when it comes to setting the rules for enhancements and limitations.

Of course. I just can't leave it alone when people try to quash innovative thought on the part of other GMs.
There's many, many things which I've helped to model which I would never allow in my worlds, and which I consider less than ideal; nevertheless I help people model them, because translating concepts from one form to another is something which give me pleasure. Different stroke for different folks and all that. This also, is off subject.

[Mark Skarr]

Now, I'm not trying to argue with you, Ze'Manel Cunha. But how would you model this:

Character has a DR 30 force field. It can only stop 30 points of damage per round not attack. If it gets hit by 10, 3-pt attacks, it stops them all, but if the character were to get hit by 11, they'd take 3 pts of damage. At the beginning of next turn, the force field refreshes back to 30 points.

This force field should not cost more than 180 points (DR 30 x 5 x 1.2 (force field)) because it is not as good as a normal force field DR of 30. But, how much less should it cost? Against a single foe, using a single weapon, there isn't much difference between the ablative FF and the normal FF. But, against multiple foes or rapid-fire weaponry, its effectiveness drops off drastically.

I don't think the example above is munchkin. I think it replicates a limited strength force field regardless of origin.

[cccwebs]

You're massively overcomplicating a simple issue, with the occasional strawman tossed into your arguments.
Break even issues are points you can use to influence munchkins, but it's a false argument to hold up to "modders" as you called us, or more appropriately in my case, for "modelers".

No, you are ignoring the whole and focusing only on a single part. That's a trait I've seen quite often enough in the field I used to work in. In the end, I see a different "big picture" than what you see. You see only that ablative or semi-ablative DR with an increase in it's regeneration should never cost more than the same lv of straight DR, where I see that ablative/semi-ablative DR is priced proportionally with other methods of providing the same general benefits (in particular extra HP) and consider that the cost to increase it's regeneration should be proportional to the other methods.

The issue is strictly buying DR, on a cost basis, any type of DR which is not as good a normal DR is worth less than 5 CP per level.
Buying Regen power for ablative DR they way you suggest is munchkin bait.

Again, the issue is in increasing the regeneration rate that is already included with the ablative/semi-ablative DR. The Regeneration power already affects the ablative/semi-ablative DR, as does the "sidebar" on p 424 which has an increased recovery of HP for values above normal.

When something doesn't translate well, it's either the fault of the language for lacking the concepts, or of the translator not being well versed in both languages.
This translator isn't having any problem with the language, so our difference on this issue must be due to a literal interpretation of the rules which is resulting in a non-Universal and non-Generic basis on your part.
Concepts come first, rules are just there to allow them to interact with other concepts.

Funny, I'd say that it's this translator who isn't having a problem with the language, but that's the problem with translators, each always thinks that the problem is never on thier end. The rules exist to maintain some sense of "balance" in the gaming system and prevent someone from coming up with an advantage which could potentially unbalance a campaign. (oh, like semi-ablative, extreme regeneration DR of 100 costing less than DR 100 even though they essentially do the same thing, just to save a few points)

Of course. I just can't leave it alone when people try to quash innovative thought on the part of other GMs.
There's many, many things which I've helped to model which I would never allow in my worlds, and which I consider less than ideal; nevertheless I help people model them, because translating concepts from one form to another is something which give me pleasure. Different stroke for different folks and all that. This also, is off subject.

Who quashed any innovative thought? It seems that the original poster who came up with this concept found the information I provided insightful and is considering other methods of modeling what he desires.