Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-13-2024, 05:18 AM   #1
mr beer
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Default Innate Attack question

Hi, trying to design a Malediction attack which combines damage and Fatigue.

- How do stat both effects? Looks like Link but I want one roll to do both effects i.e. either the target wins the Quick Contest and takes damage + FP or succeeds and does neither.

- How to reduce the target's chance of success? There is a Quick Contest of Will vs. HT, but how to either increase target's effective HT or increase user's effective Will? Doesn't seem to be a Modifier for this.
mr beer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 08:09 AM   #2
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Innate Attack question

Using the same roll for both should be worth +0%. The same would be true if you had equal-damage attacks and set it so both used the same damage roll.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 04:08 PM   #3
mr beer
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Default Re: Innate Attack question

So is this correct? And is there a way to reduce the target's chance of success, other than simply buying up Will?

Dehydrate: Innate Attack Toxic 6d (Base 24 +205%, Malediction 3 +200%, Variable +5%) + Fatigue 3d (Base 30 +225%, Dehydration +20%; Malediction Long Distance +200%, Variable +5%) [169]. Quick Contest of Will vs. HT to inflict both damage and Fatigue upon the target at long range (p 241).

Thank you for your help.
mr beer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 04:45 PM   #4
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Innate Attack question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr beer View Post
So is this correct? And is there a way to reduce the target's chance of success, other than simply buying up Will?

Dehydrate: Innate Attack Toxic 6d (Base 24 +205%, Malediction 3 +200%, Variable +5%) + Fatigue 3d (Base 30 +225%, Dehydration +20%; Malediction Long Distance +200%, Variable +5%) [169]. Quick Contest of Will vs. HT to inflict both damage and Fatigue upon the target at long range (p 241).

Thank you for your help.
That looks mostly right; the description of Malediction only has the target roll against HT for Afflictions, for everything else it's a Quick Contest of Will. No option is given to make it use HT (Afflictions allow for you to change it with Based On (Different Attribute), but I'm not certain if it's intended for you to be able to do this otherwise), but I'd probably let you substitute HT in with Based on HT +20%.

To make it more likely to work, you could either boost Will really high or put Reliable on the attack. At only +5% per +1 to the roll, that's a pretty cheap way to penalize the target's resistance.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 05:27 PM   #5
Christopher R. Rice
 
Christopher R. Rice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Default Re: Innate Attack question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
That looks mostly right; the description of Malediction only has the target roll against HT for Afflictions, for everything else it's a Quick Contest of Will. No option is given to make it use HT (Afflictions allow for you to change it with Based On (Different Attribute), but I'm not certain if it's intended for you to be able to do this otherwise), but I'd probably let you substitute HT in with Based on HT +20%.
Yeah, Based on (Attribute) is how you change the contest for Maledictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
To make it more likely to work, you could either boost Will really high or put Reliable on the attack. At only +5% per +1 to the roll, that's a pretty cheap way to penalize the target's resistance.
You can't put Reliable on ranged attacks.
__________________
My Twitter
My w23 Stuff
My Blog

Latest GURPS Book: Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves
Latest TFT Book: The Sunken Library

Become a Patron!
Christopher R. Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 06:27 PM   #6
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Innate Attack question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice View Post
You can't put Reliable on ranged attacks.
Because they have Acc, and thus you need to give them Accurate instead. But Maledictions lack Acc, and thus should be eligible for Reliable. A purely literal reading of the rules certainly states Reliable isn't available for Ranged attacks, but there are two contextual counters to that. First, as indicated above, it's stated that Ranged attacks are to be given Accurate instead, but Malediction cannot have Accurate as it lacks Acc. Secondly, Malediction states "Your attack is not a conventional ranged attack; it works more like a Regular spell," implying Malediction overrides the Ranged modifier and makes the attack something else.

It's certainly possible the authors intended Malediction to have a "worst of both worlds" status in this regard - lacks Acc and thus ineligible for Accurate, but is still Ranged and thus ineligible for Reliable. And, of course, a GM who decides (with good reason!) Reliable is simply too good for its price when combined with Malediction can absolutely rule Malediction as ineligible for Reliable, regardless of how the rules are intended to work. But I feel the proper reading of the rules is that Malediction would be eligible for Reliable.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 06:57 PM   #7
Christopher R. Rice
 
Christopher R. Rice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Default Re: Innate Attack question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Because they have Acc, and thus you need to give them Accurate instead. But Maledictions lack Acc, and thus should be eligible for Reliable. A purely literal reading of the rules certainly states Reliable isn't available for Ranged attacks, but there are two contextual counters to that. First, as indicated above, it's stated that Ranged attacks are to be given Accurate instead, but Malediction cannot have Accurate as it lacks Acc. Secondly, Malediction states "Your attack is not a conventional ranged attack; it works more like a Regular spell," implying Malediction overrides the Ranged modifier and makes the attack something else.

It's certainly possible the authors intended Malediction to have a "worst of both worlds" status in this regard - lacks Acc and thus ineligible for Accurate, but is still Ranged and thus ineligible for Reliable. And, of course, a GM who decides (with good reason!) Reliable is simply too good for its price when combined with Malediction can absolutely rule Malediction as ineligible for Reliable, regardless of how the rules are intended to work. But I feel the proper reading of the rules is that Malediction would be eligible for Reliable.
It's not. I asked PK this when we were doing Psionic Powers, Sean when I did MH Power-Ups, and a couple of times between. Wanna be better at a Malediction? Buy up Will. That was literally the answer I got.

That said...you absolutely could houserule it. I don't know what would break just because Reliable IS so cheap.

Edit: We absolutely could just ask him on Monday too...I could be misremembering.
__________________
My Twitter
My w23 Stuff
My Blog

Latest GURPS Book: Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves
Latest TFT Book: The Sunken Library

Become a Patron!

Last edited by Christopher R. Rice; 04-13-2024 at 07:25 PM.
Christopher R. Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 07:10 PM   #8
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Innate Attack question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice View Post
That said...you absolutely could houserule it. I don't know what would break just because Reliable IS so cheap.
Honestly, reliable would be much better balanced if it always required the equivalent of an aim maneuver.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 07:14 PM   #9
Christopher R. Rice
 
Christopher R. Rice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Default Re: Innate Attack question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Honestly, reliable would be much better balanced if it always required the equivalent of an aim maneuver.
Maybe some kind of Concentrate or Ready. I could probably see that, yeah. Another way to do it would be to treat it as a fixed cost trait like a Racial Skill bonus. That would only get crazy on stuff over 50 points.
__________________
My Twitter
My w23 Stuff
My Blog

Latest GURPS Book: Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves
Latest TFT Book: The Sunken Library

Become a Patron!
Christopher R. Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2024, 08:38 PM   #10
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Innate Attack question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice View Post
It's not. I asked PK this when we were doing Psionic Powers, Sean when I did MH Power-Ups, and a couple of times between. Wanna be better at a Malediction? Buy up Will. That was literally the answer I got.
Ah, good to know. I assumed it was just an oversight or a classic case of "Of course the reader's will read this as <meaning>" followed by the readers misreading it as <opposite meaning>, but sounds like Malediction being caught between is things working as intended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice View Post
That said...you absolutely could houserule it. I don't know what would break just because Reliable IS so cheap.
The Rule of 16 could avoid some of the worst abuses, and mean that you don't have to have an iron Will to be able to reliably succeed with your Malediction.

Even absent that, for Maledictions that directly cause damage, Reliable would probably be fine. Consider the suggested Advantage - with a total base cost of [54], each +1 from Reliable would cost [2.7]. A weaker attack would be cheaper, certainly... but then it would be a weaker attack, so that's not terribly problematic. It would absolutely be broken for Affliction as the base cost remains [10] regardless of how powerful it is - a Heart Attack Malediction that has the target roll against HT+0 would cost [40], while one that functionally has the target roll against HT-10 (by giving you a +10 to your roll with Reliable 10 +50%) would cost [45].

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice View Post
Maybe some kind of Concentrate or Ready. I could probably see that, yeah. Another way to do it would be to treat it as a fixed cost trait like a Racial Skill bonus. That would only get crazy on stuff over 50 points.
If we treat the roll for Malediction to be an activation roll (which it more-or-less is - you're not rolling to hit, hitting is automatic, so it's arguably not really an attack roll), Skills for Everyone would already apply to give a relevant skill to roll against, so letting you take a racial skill bonus wouldn't be too outlandish (above Default+6 [4], you're better off spending [5] on +1 Will rather than [4] on +1 to just that skill, so using a racial skill bonus wouldn't really be unbalanced).
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.